1290 Sb Ae 


worn ‘ 
i hese RN Purit ke ate 


a a * a SB 
oS wa Pe ae WP Ome 
ails eek. fs 


a 
4 aA 


Miya’ 
aya 


> re es 
“+ 
Satya 
SH 
nth ee 


i 

“i 

Be oe oe ra 
ee NR ante 


DU) 


he a a rhans tk 
Ve va Lae “4 As hha ¥ 
be cw a's Ais 


* 


as ae : 
vas : 
oF 
ry ‘% 


A 


% ML aN, 
A . nr 
a 
bs arn he 


3 


: wes ts 
AVE Le. eo 
Or AG 


it gw > Sy ag <a eR 


= poten 


sah a pane Paes 
= 
- pe 
pe See Pere # 
og sags Are 


— 


eee oe ees ee : S eae c= Eh gag or See se SS Se aS eyh bee ae eye “i oe £ 
= eels ee Sato nite Fn Pith ghee Ny gE eg Patera 2 canal ae me OS Re eee ee tals te dct ai ange a pete 5: 
ee es a rage ; = i ie bre i ae oe 3 a ie he? =< xt 3 Be $ Sen sat hae i i Bonnet Spt en as oe oa, we a a ae hee - the Sa. ae EAP aS <a oe cae 


rhe hy 

i Ad aR 

ae ‘eu ‘ > ; 
hing Oa: hb late 
Lica arb 


* “3 es ac ; 
Sa eeone ey ee = 
oo Sree eae aan ae ‘oat ie ae 
Fei ae ; 4 
s Pe ee Soh 2 
—— ~ 
eae tie are * 
Se iter poem 


oa ae te ean 
et coment nay A a a 


sige 


; sat 
oh a 
atehing: Ay 

te 4% 4 it ; 


tba es Ses 


ee ee 


pg 


pee Sit ats 


ae 


a 


. —- 
Nt oe 


- 


be et. ——s 


J 


2% 


at rt hoe ee ee 
tus / ' : 


Pay ee Pe Th Seas a P od Sa by Sad Re Mahi Ne Sache Bae D : 
Lath tepae ebb a) ated beans eg ot a Seen PPA MEH wat pt 





> ee 


ie oe 





PK37A1 


| 
- i 
4 
® 
@ 
* 
. 64 Ts» 
aa 
es s™4 
Vario 
4 2 














\< 


ee ie F Tt . 
pt a a ae - 





AMERICAN ORIENTAL SERIES 
VOLUME 3 


THE PANCHATANTRA RECONSTRUCTED 
VOLUME 2 


AMERICAN ORIENTAL 
SERIES 


VOLUME 3 


COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS 


EK. WASHBURN HOPKINS 


Chairman 
CHARLES C. TORREY 
and 


FRANKLIN EDGERTON MAX L. MARGOLIS 
Ex officio, as Editors of the Journal 


PUBLISHED BY THE 
American Oriental Societu 
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTIOUT, U.S. A. 
1924 


THE PANCHATANTRA 
RECONSTRUCTED 


AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THE LOST ORIGINAL SANSKRIT TEXT 
OF THE MOST FAMOUS OF INDIAN STORY-COLLECTIONS ON 
THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPAL EXTANT VERSIONS 


ext, Crifical Apparatus, Infroductian, Cranslafian 
By FRANKLIN EDGERTON 


Assistant Professor of Sanskrit in the 
University of Pennsylvania 


VOLUME 2 
INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION 


HUMPHREY MILFORD 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW TORONTO 
MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY CAECU LEA 





i i: ir, 


PRINTED BY ADOLF HOLZHAUSEN, VIENNA, AUSTRIA 


; we i baie 


re 
; ‘ 
ld , ‘ : : 


a & i ae Wed fr 





f.0 NEEN TS OF VOC U ME, IL 


INTRODUCTION 


Chapter I. Purpose and Results of this Book 3 
The Pajicatantra in world literature . Bot at a i aeitel fa || ap vy Seb eS 
The Pajicatantra in India. .... pleboenbes oul is! isk: oe eh EO 
Object of this book, contrasted with previous eadien + 
What was the original Paficatantra?. a 


Interest of this investigation. Ae 5 
Method employed in the reconstruction . 6 
Primary results of this investigation . 8 
Incidental results of this investigation . 9 
Extent of divergence from Hertel’s results 10 
Chapter II. The Materials ee te, 12 
Paficatantra versions used in the reConatrienons 12 
The Tantrakhyayika (abbreviated T). ; : 12 
Extent to which the Tantrakhyayika preserves the Oriel text 13 
Secondary additions in the Tantrakhyayika. 13 
Hertel’s views of the Tantrakhyayika ears tN eran aee ae 
The Tantrakhyayika has no privileged position among Paneicaica 
versions . 16 
The Southern Panestanie (abnrev ated, SP) 17 


Extent to which the Southern Pajicatantra preserves the eeietnal: ae 18 


Secondary additions in the Southern Paficatantra 19 
The Nepalese Paficatantra (abbreviated N) . ay) 
The HitopadeSa (abbreviated H): its origin . a eee ac 
General plan of the HitopadeSa . ... . Mr umetia tk 
Extent to which the HitopadeSa preserves the anottad ne Mak wer On 
secondary additions in the Hitopadefa.»: 2 2. 2a. 2). 22 
The Paficatantra’s position in the Brhatkatha. . ... Soha axe 
Effect of language and versification on the Brhatkatha versions . . 23 
Bement abbreviated Wagjawse. sy. Se Ea aes a A 24 
Somadeva (abbreviated So) .... I Sys Doar alg ra 1 
The so-called “ textus siinipttetb: Ys (abireviited Spl) . 27 


vi 


Page 
General plan of Simplicior 3 iS 28 
Extent to which Simplicior preserves ‘the ‘original tents 29 
Secondary additions in Simplicior . 30 
Pirnabhadra (abbreviated Pn) . 50 


General plan of Piirnabhadra: his two main sources, e Tantrakhysyika 


and Simplicior . ‘ 31 

The “ Ur-Tantrakhyayika,” source ‘of the . Ue Sinpligion - wand he 
Tantrakhyayika 36 
Ptrnabhadra’s other source or sources “ae 
Value of Pirnabhadra for the reconstruction 26 ea) 
Extent to which Pirnabhadra preserves the original bie . 39 
Secondary additions in Purnabhadra J), . 5). ~ = ©.) s 9 eee 
The Pahlavi translation (abbreviated Pa) . 40 
Immediate offshoots of the Pahlavi. . 41 
Offshoots of the Pahlavi thru the Arabic . 27 . 43 
Use made of the Pahlavi versions in the present work . 44 
Extent to which the Pahlavi preserves the original text . . 45 
Secondary additions in the Pahlavi hy Wh . 46 
Taste showing interrelations of older Paficatantra versions . 48 
Chapter III. Methods employed in the Reconstruction. . 49 
Purpose of this chapter . : . 49 
Three ways of proving peuandere tate erele GOMaTin . 49 
Versions which are not secondarily interrelated . 52 
How to determine original matter? : . 52 
All versions point to a definite literary praheur hee 53 
1. Features common to all versions must be original ie ys 

2. Omission of features in PaoraaR et and the Brhatkatha versions 
not significant . : ae aes 

3. Very minor features common ie a emaiee anther of independent 
versions are not necessarily original . 5, paian sind ane 

4. More important features common to several fide tention’ versions: 

probability of originality tends to vary with importance and 
closeness of correspondence . . = ee ae 

5.. Entire stories common to several iudevendent versions at thes same 
place are almost certainly original . . 58 
6. Summary of methods by which originality is datormi neal . 60 
7. Features occurring only in a single stream of tradition . 60 

Our methods are verified inductively and pragmatically, and are ae 
based on mere abstract considerations . 62 
Critique of Hertel’s method . . 64 
Chapter IV. Secondary Interrelationships of Various Versions . 68 
Common archetype of the Old Syriac and the Arabic . +68 
Common archetype of Somadeva and Ksemendra . 69 
The “ Ur-SP,” archetype of SP, N, and H. ; . 69 
The “ Ur-N,” the secondary archetype of N and H . . 69 
Ksemendra used a Tantrakhyayika manuscript . a0 


Vil 


Page 
The “ Ur-Simplicior,” source of our Simplicior, and one of the main 
sources of Pirnabhadra ..... : <a bn a ot 60 
Duplications in Pirnabhadra, due to his use of ae HOULERR Aha a) a etd 
The “ Ur-Tantrakhyayika,” archetype of Tantrakhyayika and the 
‘“‘Ur-Simplicior”. . . ee Lk oo eee 
Secondary stories inverted init ‘Ur. Tantrakhyayika ” ie found only 
PUR Lies PESCONGAN TS Wy Ga Sahin | Pbenieee 2tG.! \d vy None een | Co 
Pan bor bine slackalyy, is: ioe sana pits, ieee ora eas i T4 
2. Jackal outwits Camel and Lion Sg Vey a) lg aR Ee PSR co eA 
Bru OAVereCODulak Ads baz, BUPA aA Slee baoeen oaphy syecse alte O68 
AeA RAR BAN Gm Spine cA iy We ee ees, I eat Leow ls TR 
De POttorea nan wALTlOreye Sic hs Gigi ioo is WARS ee bay ee es ke TS 
6. The Clever Hansa... . 79 
7. Other stories which may Teak oe hen fon in Mahe 
Ur-Tantrakhyayika .... . si lipant as : Beiiex seer ee 
Verbal correspondences between Tantrakhyayika ha Simplicior and 
POI aDRACr Saray dey eet hs) Mite eT aS ate lee 1D 
Clearly secondary correspondences in detail between Tantrakhyayika 
Ande minipliciorand: Lurnapnadra) rave rael zis) ane. (80 
1. Reconstruction I §§ 18—22, including vss 4, 5 Lee: . re BO 
PPSVOCUNAtLU CECT L> Ga Oa Sierra tls a ies eR oo dl 
aheconstruction «LIT va. 9Orom ey Rea! ote Me a BB 
SPGECONSEUCHIONALLLYS bdo Se ete pare ae ehh a eas 86 
Bo econnaceccion: LISS 7 lee lone te he ek nk eee! ea, le Sg 
Dre heeonstraction ILvS 233 0 ) 97.3, AP ee OM 
7. Minor and miscellaneous agreements of T Aes Spl ch teace Bale ie 


Chapter V. Critique of Hertel’s Views of Interrelationship of Versions. 89 
General remarks on Hertel’s views of the Paficatantra versions . . 89 
Points in Hertel’s genealogical table of versions which this chapter 


will try to disprove... . : 90 
Hertel’s proofs are insufficient even if hey were miraivideails ead 91 
These theories are not only unproved but unprovable ...... 92 
ERIE COATCNOS VG tke ie) sont gers Sh a vo eg ot WME al wh tame 

What is meant by this “t”? .... ako TTY ee gees 
1. pratyayito, T “A 149;” ecuaatenntion ‘I 8 62. SEIT a en ae 
2. The verse T II. 87; ee toncteh Ths. DS Sees ere, ei ..) 204 
3. bhojanam, T p. 60, 1.9; Reconstruction I1§ 570... ... . 96 
4, The tree-oracle, T p. 57, 1. 15 ff.; Reconstruction I § 547 .. 97 
5. The crocodile and the ape, T “ A 286; ” Reconstruction IV § 36 98 
6. The verse T III. 125; Reconstruction HI vs 107. ...... 98 
a2 i. he? verse ‘Tr. 174;, Reconstruction | vs 168°.)... ... . . . °98 
Summary and conclusion regarding “t” .......4.2..=. 99 
The supposed archetype “K” ... MMe Narn) Psi 10k 
What is meant by the archetype “ K y Mikey BLO. = @ TOE 


1. The ape and the crocodile, Book IV, frame; wmetenlely T 
ALAS VSCOnstructione ly S OOutiravyy the slls bes fae ss / 102 


Vill 


. The verse T II. 90; Reconstruction II vs 55 ° . 

. The verse T II. 25; Reconstruction II vs 15 . 

. Huskt or unhuskt sesame? Story II. 2. . 

Other evidence for “ K” in Hertel, Tantr. Einl. p. “31. 

The verse T I. 19; Reconstruction I vs 21 . 

The verse T IJ. 61; Reconstruction II v$35 , 

. End of Book IV. ; : 
. The verse SP III. 32; Racenstrnstion TI y vs 44, itd ehecaaine 


Co “1m Ot Pp oo PO 


=) 


prose. : : 

Summary and Iynaheae as ae ch a archetype kK” ‘ 

The supposed archetype “N-W”. ohne i ae a) 
What is meant by the supposed aroneeene hi <N-W Ax? 
1. The sesame story again ‘ 
2. Story of Brahman and Rogues, II. 5 
Summary and conclusion. 

Relations of Tantrakhyayika « ae g, Aan of te mss, Nee n 
Hertel’s view that T« is more original than 6 
The present writer’s views ; 
Alleged interpolations in T £ eae a “ “K? 3 Side : 
Minor variations in the language of Ta and § 4 
Supposed “attempted corrections”, in T 8, of Ta teadinen : 
The manuscripts of Tantrakhyayika 
Summary and conclusion 


Chapter VI. Examples of Method of Reconstruction: Original and 
Unoriginal Agreements. 
Purpose of this chapter ; 
Reconstruction of Book I, §§ 3448, afaic vss ees 23 
Original and unoriginal agreements . 
Unoriginal agreements between H and Pa. 
between H and Jn, 
between SP and Jn 
between Pn and Ks 
between T and SP. 


Chapter VII. Examples of Method of Reconstruction, continued: Establish- 
ment of Original by Agreements of Other Texts than Tantra- 
khyayika . 

Purpose of this chapter Lae A a ERI et a 
Agreements of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T. 

of Ur-SP, Jn, and Pa 

of Ur-SP, Jn, and So or Ks. i Aen 

of Ur-SP, Pa, and So or Ks, against i (ane Tae 

of Pa, Jn, and So or Ks . : , 

of Ur-SP and both Jn versions, agaist T : 

of Ur-SP and Spl, against T (and Pn) . 

of Ur-SP and Pn, against T Ase, Spl). 

of Ur-SP and Pa, 


Page 
Agreements of Ur-SP and So or Ks 171 
of Pa and Jn 171 
of Pa and So or Ks 174 
of Jn and So or Ks 174 
Other unoriginal features in Tantetkhyayita. 175 
Insertions in Tantrakhyayika . 177 
Chapter VIII. The Original Work as Revealed ee. the Reconstruction, 181 
Purpose of this chapter 181 
Name of the original work . 181 
Meaning of the name 181 
Date of the original work . 182 
Authorship of the original work 182 
Home of the original work . 183 
Language of the original work . 184 
Character of the original work as a condi eeaere 185 
Story-contents of the original: stories included by me but Sxbidded 
or doubted by Hertel 186 
ConsPectUS OF STORIES OF THE ORIGINAL . 189 
Consrectus or TEXxT-UNITS OF THE ORIGINAL ; 192 
Chapter IX. Critical Notes on the Text of the Panterne epee 259 
Purpose of this chapter : 259 
Emendations in the text of Tantrakhyayika 5 . 259 
Unfortunate emendations made by Hertel in the text “of Tantra- 
khyayika . : Pee te ints tere OU 
Unfortunate choices are ne Hertel oreben Sei manuscript 
readings in the text of Tantrakhyayika . 263 
"TRANSLATION 
Kathamukha or Introductory Section . . 271 
First Book: The Separation of Friends, or, The tied aod the Bull . . 274 
Story 1: Ape and Wedge ee 
Story 2: Jackal and Drum. . 284 
Story 3a: Monk and Swindler . . 288 
Story 3b: Rams and Jackal : . 288 
Story 3c: Cuckold Weaver and hao . 289 
Story 4: Crows and Serpent . 294 
Story 5: Heron and Crab . 294 
Story 6: Lion and Hare . . 296 
Story 7: Louse and Flea. . 302 
Story 8: Lion’s Retainers and Gaal . 308 
Story 9: Strandbirds and Sea, . 312 
Story 10: Geese and Tortoise. : . 313 
Story 11: Forethot, Ready-wit, and Cone: Sit. . 314 
Story 12: Ape, Glow-worm, and Bird . . 320 


Edgerton, Pancatantra II. b 


Story 13: 


Evil-wit and Honest-wit 


Story 14: Herons, Snake, and pe 
Story 15: Iron-eating Mice. 


Tortoise, and Deer 


Story 1: 
Story 2: 
Story 3: 
Story 4: 
Third Book: 
Story 1: 
Story 2: 
Story 3 
Story 4: 
Story 5: 
Story 6 
Story 7: 
Story 8 
Story 9: 


Mouse and Two Monks . 

Huskt for Huskt Sesame. 

Too Greedy Jackal . 

Deer’s Former Captivity . 

War and Peace, or, The Crows ret the oie 
Ass in Panther’s Skin . 

Birds Elect King . 


: Elephant, Hares, and Mout 


Cat, Partridge, and Hare 
Brahman and Rogues . 


: Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief. 


Brahman, Thief, and Ogre . 


: Cuckold Carpenter 


Mouse- Maiden 


Story 10: Frogs Ride Serpent 


Fourth Book: The Loss of One’s Gutiingaed or, The say Ay the Groppaite 
. 398 
. 401 
. 401 
. 404 


Story 1: 
Fifth Book: 
Story 1: 
Story 2: 


Addenda et 


Ass without Heart and Ears , 


Hasty Action, or, The Brahman and the Mbncionse 


Brahman who Built Air-castles . 
Barber who Killed the Monks . 


Corrigenda . 


Page 


. 822 
. . 323 

. 325 
Second Book: The Winning of Brisnite or, “The haa raw Neen 
. 329 
. 838 
. 339 
. 340 
. 852 
. 358 
. 364 
. 364 
. 865 
. 369 
ye 
. 376 
. 377 
. 378 
. 380 


. 386 
393 


. 406 


THE PANCHATANTRA RECONSTRUCTED 


INTRODUCTION 


Edgerton, Paicatantra, II. 1 





CHAPTER I 
PURPOSE AND RESULTS OF THIS BOOK 


The Pajicatantra in world literature.—No other work of Hindu 
literature has played so important a part in the literature of the 
world as the Sanskrit story-collection called the Paiicatantra. 
Indeed, the statement has been made? that no book except the 
Bible has enjoyed such an extensive circulation in the world as 
a whole. This may be—I think it probably is—an exaggeration. 
Yet perhaps it is easier to underestimate than to overestimate 
the spread of the Pancatantra. In Professor Johannes Hertel’s 
book on the subject? there are recorded over two hundred 
different versions known to exist in more than fifty languages; 
and about three-fourths of these languages are extra-Indian. 
As early as the eleventh century the work reacht Kurope, and 
before 1600 it existed in Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian, German, 
English, Old Slavonic, Czech,® and perhaps other Slavonic lan- 
cuages. Its range has extended from Java to Iceland. 

The Paficatantra in India.—Nor has this famous work been 
without honor in its own country. No other collection of stories 
has been so popular thruout the length and breadth of India. 
It has been workt over again and again, expanded, abstracted, 
turned into verse, retold in prose, translated into medieval and 
modern vernaculars, and retranslated into Sanskrit. And most 
of the stories contained in it have ‘“‘ gone down” into the folk- 
lore of the story-loving Hindus, whence they reappear in the 


1 According to Winternitz, DLZ. 31 (1910), 2693; not, however, with his 
endorsement. 

2 Das Paficatantra, seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung; Leipzig and 
Berlin, 1914. (Abbreviated: ‘“‘ Hertel, Pafic.”’) See the Indices to this book, 
I, p. 451 f. 

5 In several of the languages named, a number of different versions existed 


at that early date. 
1* 


4 Chapter I: Purpose and results of this book 


collections of oral tales gathered by modern students of folk- 
stories.* 

Object of this book, contrasted with previous studies.—It is 
not my purpose at present to trace the history of the Panca- 
tantra or its stories, as they appear in successive works of 
literature or in folklore. This either has been done, or is being 
done, by others.’ The task I am undertaking is rather the re- 
verse: to follow back the streams of Pantcatantra tradition in 
the hope of finding their source. For my present purpose, the 
contents of the versions of the Paneatantra are of interest only 
in so far as they may throw light on the ultimate source of 
them all. 

What was the original Paficatantra?—LKEven a superficial exa- 
mination of the existing Pancatantra versions indicates with 
tolerable certainty that they all go back to a book of fables 
and stories consisting of five books or sections and a brief 
introduction. The introduction provides the “ frame ” or setting, 
and at the same time suggests what must have been to the 
author’s mind the key-note of the whole work: it was supposed 
to be a kind of Miirstenspiegel or Mirror for Magistrates, teach- 
ing worldly wisdom to princes, by entertaining examples, as 
well as by cleverly phrased precepts. The precepts are princi- 
pally found in the verses which are abundantly scattered thru 
most parts of the work. The examples consist in the stories 
themselves, which are told mainly in prose. Each of the five 
sections or ‘ books’’ forms a dramatic unit in itself, and all 
five are, as I said, set into the Introduction as a frame. In 
the Introduction a wise brahman undertakes to enlighten three 
ignorant princes. He does so by narrating to them, one after 
another, the five books of the Paficatantra. Each of the five’ 
books contains not only a primary story, which we call the 
‘“frame-story,” but also at least one, and usually several, 
‘“emboxt” stories; that is, stories represented as told by one 
character in the frame-story to another. Sometimes there is a 
double “‘emboxment”’: a character in an ‘‘emboxt”’ story tells 


40 1p eee ye . . 
See W. Norman Brown, “The Paficatantra in Modern Indian Folklore,” 


JAOS. 39.1 ff. This subject is not included in Hertel’s Paficatantra, mentioned 
in note 2 above. . 


° See notes 2 and 4 above. 


~ 


What was the original Pafcatantra? oO 


a story to another character. (In some of the late versions of 
the Panecatantra this process was carried even further, so that 
we have a sort of ‘“ Chinese nest” of stories.) Most of the 
stories are beast-fables, that is their principal actors are animals 
deckt out with human properties; but a number of them have 
only human characters, while some have both men and animals, 
and even—tho rarely—gods and other supernatural beings. The 
stories are in general very well told and of a high artistic qua- 
lity. Unevennesses and inconsistencies appear not infrequently 
in all of the existing versions, to be sure. But I hope to be 
able to show that most of them (not quite all) are secondary, 
and due to the fact that the tales tend to deteriorate with re- 
telling. Most of the stories remain true to the key-note of the 
book, its Machiavellian character; they are generally unmoral, 
and at times positively immoral, in the political lessons they 
inculeate. The story-teller and the political strategist are com- 
bined in the personality of the author, and on the whole combined 
very successfully. Sometimes one gets the upper hand, sometimes 
the other. There are passages which become tiresomely tech- 
nical in their expatiations on policy. More numerous, it seems 
to me (and fortunately so, from our point of view), are the 
passages in which the author as a master of narrative forgets 
his profest practical purpose and loses himself in the joy of 
telling a rattling good story.® In general, however, the two 
things are very skilfully united, so that a story which is clever 
in itself, as a story, also becomes an apt illustration of a poli- 
tical maxim. 

Interest of this investigation.—Such, very briefly, seems to 
have been the original Paficatantra. If the genuine and pri- 
mitive text of it were known to us; or if we were in possession 
of a text which could be called a reasonably close approximation 
to it; then this book would be unnecessary, or at least less 
necessary. Unfortunately we have neither of these things; cer- 
tainly not the original Paneatantra, and in my opinion—an 
opinion which [ hope to prove in the course of this book—no 


6 On this point Ido not agree with Hertel, who thinks that the original 
contained no story that did not teach a definite political lesson, and con- 
sequently rejects all stories in which he cannot find any. I shall return to 
this subject later; see page 77, note 2; page 185. 


6 Chapter I: Purpose and results of this book 


reasonably close approximation to it. If this be true, and if 
there is any possibility of reconstructing the lost original with 
reasonable accuracy and confidence, the task would seem worth 
the pains. If any study in literary genetics has interest or value, 
surely it must be worth while to recreate the original form of 
a work that has enjoyed such enormous popularity in so many 
different times and lands. 

Method employed in the reconstruction—My method may be 
briefly described as follows. I first selected the versions of the 
Paneatantra which, on the basis of previous studies (especially 
Hertel’s), could be assumed to contain all, or at least practi- 
cally all, the evidence that could be used in reconstructing 
the original Pafiecatantra.’ All other known versions can be 
practically excluded from consideration, since they are known 
to be almost or quite completely dependent on one or another 
of these versions; hence whatever they have of the original 
may in general be assumed to come from one of these older 
and more original versions.® 

Next, I undertook a very minute comparison of all the ma- 
terials found in each of these versions in so far as they cor- 
respond in meaning to materials found in any of the others. 
For this purpose I divided the texts into the smallest possible 
units, each unit consisting, as a rule, in the case of the San- 
skrit versions, of a single stanza or prose sentence,—sometimes 
of a part of a sentence.” I treated the text of each version 


7 These are: Tantrakhyayika, Southern Paficatantra, Nepalese Paficatantra, 
Hitopadesa (in greater part a Pajicatantra version), the poetic versions 
found in Somadeva’s Kathasaritsagara and in Ksemendra’s Brhatkathamafijary, 
the ‘‘textus simplicior,” Pirnabhadra, and the principal offshoots of the 
Pahlavi translation. 

* Possibly an exception might be made of some of the offshoots of the 
‘“‘textus simplicior,” of which text we have no critical edition. But I believe 
that there is little chance of serious vitiation of the final result on account 
of this. See page 28. I have used all the information available to me (espe- 
cially in Hertel’s book, Das Paficatantra) regarding the numerous later ver- 
sions of the Paficatantra, A few bits of interesting evidence bearing on 
minor points of the reconstruction have been extracted from them, and will 
be presented at the proper places. In general they do not affect the result, 
but merely tend to confirm conclusions which were reacht without their aid. 

* A start towards such a subdivision was furnisht by Hertel in the table 
printed in the Kinleitung to his translation of the Tantrakhyayika, pages 


Method employed in the reconstruction 7 


critically, noting variant readings of different manuscripts and 
editions in so far as these are available. 

Confronting these text-units, as found in the different ver- 
sions, with each other, I studied the relationship of the ver- 
sions. When a sentence or verse was found in identical or 
practically identical language, and in the same position, in all 
the prose Sanskrit recensions, and when its general sense was 
found in the poetic and translated recensions, I assumed that 
this sentence or verse was a literal inheritance from the original. 
I found that such obvious correspondences '° are sufficiently 
numerous to establish, as it seems to me, beyond the possi- 
bility of doubt the fact that all these recensions do in truth 
go back to the single literary archetype assumed. Otherwise 
it would seem impossible to explain so many verbal identities, 
not only in verses, but also in prose. 

However, in the large majority of cases I was not so for- 
tunate as to find such general and absolute agreement. Here 
it was necessary, by a careful examination of the cumulative 
evidence of all the parallel text-units, to discover the relation- 
ship of the versions to the original and to each other, in order 
rightly to interpret their variations.!! Unless and until this 
could be done with an approach to certainty, no reconstruction 
could be made, with any confidence, of passages in which the 
existing versions disagree, or which are totally lacking in some 
of them; for otherwise we could not answer the question, which 
version is more apt to be original in any given case? 


100 ff. My own comparisons included a number of texts not included in 
this table; and my subdivisions of the text are much more minute. For 
instance, Hertel does not divide the prose text of the ‘“‘emboxt” stories at 
all. He does furnish the correspondences of all individual stanzas that oceur 
in the versions included in his table. I found Hertel’s table very useful 
as a starting-point. It goes without saying, however, that I did not assume 
without careful verification any of the correspondences stated in it. In fact 
it contains quite a number of errors, and a more considerable number of 
omissions, especially in regard to the Pahlavi versions. 

10 For examples, see Chapter VI. 

11 Here again I found myself to no small degree anticipated by Hertel; 
but also, I found that in many important respects the evidence seemed to 
disprove some of his most cherisht theories. I shall make clear below the 
extent to which I agree with his views as to the genealogy of the Pafica- 
tantra versions. 


8 Chapter I: Purpose and results of this book 


Primary results of this investigation.—I must postpone for a 
time a more detailed statement of the way in which this problem 
was approacht. (See Chapter III, pages 49 ff.) I wish now to 
state briefly just what I think has been accomplisht in regard 
to the primary object of the investigation, the constitution of 
the text of the original Paiicatantra. The Sanskrit text here 
publisht and translated can, in my opinion, be regarded as a 
close approximation to that original. It is surely, I think, very 
much closer to it than any existing version. More specifically, 
it seems to me that the following facts regarding it can be 
demonstrated—if not beyond the possibility of doubt, at least 
with an approach to certainty as great as one can often hope 
to attain in a matter of literary genetics. The grounds on which 
these propositions are based will, of course, be furnisht later. 

Every story contained in my reconstruction can be attri- 
buted with great confidence—in my opinion, with virtual cer- 
tainty—to the original Pancatantra. 





2. The original—again with virtual certainty—contained no 
other stories than these. 

3. Every stanza contained in my reconstruction occurred in 
the original, with the possible exception of those which I en- 
close in parentheses in text and translation (thirty out of four 
hundred and twenty-two stanzas). 

4. It is very possible that the original contained some verses 
which are not included in my reconstruction. I believe that 
there were not very many such. 

As to the prose passages, which for the most part con- 
stitute the stories proper: every sentence of my reconstruction 
represents at least the general sense of a corresponding sen- 
tence of the original, except that: 


(a) Such sentences, phrases, words, or parts of words 
as I enclose in parentheses cannot with certainty be attri- 
buted to the original; that is, they may perhaps be se- 
condary insertions. They constitute, roughly, perhaps five 
to eight percent of the total prose. 

(b) Such sentences, phrases, or words as I enclose be- 
tween daggers may fail to reproduce even the general idea 
of the original, altho the evidence shows that the original 


Primary results of this investigation i) 


had something where they stand. That is, the versions are 
so seriously. discordant that they force us to resort to 
guess-work as to which retains the general sense of the 
original. Such cases are negligibly few. 


6. | believe that there was very little, if any, prose matter 
in the original of which I have failed to include in my re- 
construction at least the general sense. 


7. Furthermore, in the case of all Sanskrit words or parts 
of words which I print in Roman type, as distinguisht from 
italics, and outside of parentheses, I believe we can be vir- 
tually, if not absolutely, certain that we have preserved the 
exact language of the original Pancatantra. This is the case 
with most of the stanzas, and a not inconsiderable part of the 
prose. We occasionally find entire prose sentences which I be- 
lieve reproduce the original, word for word and letter for 
letter. More frequent are sentences of which this is only ap- 
proximately true, and still more frequent are sentences which 
contain a few words, or only a word or two, that were cer- 
tainly in the original exactly as they stand; while there are 
many sentences of which even this can not be said. In the 
case of the verses, on the other hand, only a minority are in 
such a state that we cannot predicate originality of the greatest 
part of their language. In the case of both prose and verses I 
print in italics, in the text, all matter of which I do not feel 
virtually certain that it literally reproduces the original. 


8. The order of the original—not only the stories, but the 
individual verses and prose sentences—was, with a very few 
possible exceptions, exactly as it is in my reconstruction. As 
to the order of the stories there are no exceptions, Attention 
is called in my Critical Apparatus to the few cases in which 
doubt exists as to the relative order, in the original, of verses 
and prose sections. The somewhat more frequent, but less 
significant, uncertainties regarding the exact order of individual 
words in a sentence are not always specifically mentioned by 
me, because they are both obvious, and of minor importance. 

Incidental results of this investigation.—QOne incidental result 
of this investigation is the fact to which I have already alluded, 
that many flaws in existing versions, even in the best of 


10 Chapter I: Purpose and results of this book 


them, are now shown to be unoriginal. In other words, the 
original Pafiecatantra turns out to have been a finer work, 
artistically, than any of its descendants. This statement holds 
eood, as a general proposition, of the relationship between the 
original and at least the older existing versions—those which I 
have used in my work. When they depart from the original, 
they almost always make it worse. There are exceptions, but 
they are not numerous.—More important by-products of the 
work are the considerable number of cases in which light is 
thrown on problems regarding the text or interpretation of 
individual versions, as well as on their general interrelation- 
ships. In many cases the evidence of other versions tells us 
which of several variant manuscript readings should be adopted 
in a particular version. In some cases uncertainties as to the 
meaning of a passage are liquidated by reference to the other 
versions.!2 And I hope to have furnisht a more correct picture 
of the relative positions of the several extant versions than 
has been furnisht previously (see my genealogical table of the 
versions, page 48, and Chapters IV and V of this Intro- 
duction). 


Extent of divergence from Hertel’s results.—Students of the 
Paneatantra will be particularly imterested to know the extent 
to which my results tend to confirm or disprove the opinions 
of Professor Johannes Hertel, to whose long-continued aetivi- 
ties in this field we owe so much, particularly as to the re- 
lations of the several versions to each other and to the ori- 
ginal. It seems, therefore, worth while to summarize as follows 
the extent to which my own views, based on the studies con- 
tained in this book, differ from Hertel’s. For a more, detailed 
statement, see Chapter V below. a 


1, There are four independent streams of Paieatantra tra- 
dition. (For the list, see page 52.) Hertel believes that there 
are only two, Tantrakhyayika, and ‘K”’, archetype of all other 
versions (and in part of one subrecension of Tantrakhyayika). 


See for instance my article on “ Evil-wit, No-wit and Honest-wit,” 
JAOS, 40. 271 ff., in which I explain the previously misunderstood verse 


Tantrakhyayika [ vs 167 (Reconstruction I vs 158) by reference to the 
parallel versions. 


Extent of divergence from Hertel’s results 11 


2. Positive agreement between versions belonging to any 
two of these constitutes prima facie evidence of the reading 
of the original Pancatantra. 

3. Hertel assumes that all existing versions go back to a 
corrupt archetype, which he calls “t”. This I think is pure 
imagination. 

4. Hertel assumes an intermediate archetype ‘“K”, to which 
all versions except Tantrakhyayika go back, and from which 
even one subrecension of Tantrakhyayika was contaminated. 
I think this “‘K” is a myth. The versions in question do not 
go back to any secondary archetype. They are not especially 
closely related—no more closely than any one of them is re- 
lated to Tantrakhyayika (thru the original Pantcatantra). 

5. Hertel also assumes another intermediate archetype “ N-W ”, 
to which the Southern Panecatantra (and its relatives, the Ne- 
palese Paftcatantra and the Hitopadesa), the Pahlavi, and the 
Simplicior go back. This also, I think, is a myth. These ver- 
sions are not connected in any close or secondary way. 

6. The manuscripts of the subrecension of the Tantrakhyayika 
which Hertel calls @ are not, certainly not to any considerable 
extent, interpolated, as compared with the other subrecension, «. 
On the contrary, « is fragmentary, and when it fails to re- 
produce something found in §, it is generally, if not invariably, 
a which has lost something, not @ which has inserted it. The 
subrecension @ is as pure a Tantrakhyayika version as a, and 
on the whole a better representative of the original. No Tantra- 
khyayika text, however, has anything like the privileged posi- 
tion among Paicatantra versions which Hertel claims for the 
Tantrakhyayika as a whole. 

Other, less important, poimts on which I differ from Hertel 
will be brought out later. Most of the other statements found 
or implied in his genealogical table (‘‘Stammbaum”’) of Patea- 
tantra versions are borne out by my results. 


CHAPTER I 
THE MATERIALS 


Pajicatantra versions used in the reconstruction.—-In this 
chapter I shall give a summary account of the texts which 
have formed the basis of my work, and their interrelationships 
as I econeeive them, with an estimate of the value of each of 
them for my purpose. I shall reserve for later chapters lengthy 
discussions of such of my statements as may need them. 

As already stated in footnote 7 on page 6 (cf. also foot- 
note 8, same page), the versions which I have principally used 
are: Tantrakhyayika, Southern Pafcatantra, Nepalese Panea- 
tantra, Hitopadesa, the versions found in Somadeva’s Katha- 
saritsagara and Ksemendra’s Brhatkathamanyjari, the so-called 
‘“textus simplicior,’ Ptrnabhadra, and the principal offshoots 
of the Pahlavi translation. 


Tor TANTRAKHYAYIKA 


The Tantrakhyayika (abbreviated T).'—This is a recension 
of which the only manuscripts known come from Kashmir and 
are written in the Sarada alphabet. It was discovered by 
Hertel in the early years of the twentieth century. It exists 
in: two subrecensions, called by Hertel « and @, each of which 
contains one or more stories, and (at least in the case of §) 
a more considerable number of verses and prose sentences, 
which the other lacks. Except for this, however, the text 
found in both recensions is practically identical; the different 
readings in the manuscripts are comparatively few and un- 


* Edition: Tantrakhyayika. Die dlteste Fassung des Paficatantra... heraus- 
gegeben von Johannes Hertel. Berlin, 1910. (Abh. kg]. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 
phil.-hist, Kl., N. F. Bd. XII, no. 2.) — Translation: Tantrakhyayika. Die iilteste 
Fassung des Paficatantra, aus dem Sanskrit iibersetzt mit Kinleitung und 
Anmerkungen von Johannes Hertel. 2 Vols. Leipzig and Berlin, 1909, 


The Tantrakhyayika 13 


important. Hertel’s edition combines the two, and quotes the 
variant readings of both in the critical apparatus; it tends to 
prefer the readings of « to those of @ in case of a disagreement, 
because the editor believes that « is the more original recension. 
My own opinion is rather the reverse. In any case, however, 
the readings of all the manuscripts quoted by Hertel must be 
considered in a eritical study of the text. It is not safe to 
neglect any of them. 

Extent to which the Tantrakhyayika preserves the original 

text.—The Tantrakhyayika gives us, on the whole, more of 
the original text than any other recension. I estimate that it 
contains the general sense, at least, of ninety-five percent of 
the original text, both prose and verses. And the exact lan- 
guage of the original appears to have been preserved intact 
more extensively in the Tantrakhyayika ‘than in any other 
version. These statements are more nearly true of the $ sub- 
recension than of the «; the « subrecension has omitted one 
entire story and a number of individual sentences and verses 
which @ has preserved from the original; whereas the reverse 
is very seldom the case (in particular, @ has all the stories of 
the original, and « has no original verses that are lacking in 
%). Yet there are, in the aggregate, a not inconsiderable number 
of clear omissions in the Tantrakhyayika—that is, in all manu- 
scripts alike. To some extent these may be due merely to im- 
perfect textual tradition. For there are some obvious and indu- 
bitable lacunae in the text as we have it,—some passages in 
which it is clear that the author or redactor of the Tantra- 
khyayika wrote something that has been lost from our manu- 
seripts (all of which are late and more or less corrupt). There 
are, however, also cases in which the omission of something 
original appears to go back to the redactor of the Tantra- 
khyayika, or even to an archetype of it, a still older but also 
secondary version. There are likewise many cases in which 
the Tantrakhyayika’s text has more or less seriously altered, 
without entirely omitting, a section of the original. 

Secondary additions in the Tantrakhyayika.—The infidelities 
to the original found in Tantrakhyayika consist mainly of in- 
sertions and expansions rather than omissions or substitutions. 
Both of its subrecensions contain three stories which did not 


14 Chapter II: The materials 


belong to the original; and, in addition, « alone contains one 
other, and § alone five others (but three of these five may 
really have been found in , since the % manuscripts happen 
to have long lacunae at the points where @ has these stories).? 

Moreover, both recensions contain a quite considerable number 
of verses and prose passages which are certainly or probably 
unoriginal, This is more true of $8 than of «; % contains few 
insertions (only a single stanza, for instance, except those 
pertaining to the interpolated story « III.5) which are not 
found also in &. 

Hertel’s views of the Tantrakhyayika.—Altho my object in 
this chapter is to give mainly a summary of my own deductions 
from my investigations, rather than to engage in controversy, 
I feel that it would be unfair to the discoverer, and first editor 
and translator, of the Tantrakhyayika if I failed to mention at 
this point the extent to which my views of this version differ 
from his. When he first discovered the Tantrakhyayika, Hertel 
hailed it as the genuine, original ‘‘ Urtext”’ of the Pancatantra 
itself,—the very thing which it is the object of my present in- 
vestigation to reconstruct. This opinion was decidedly untenable, 
and Hertel has withdrawn materially from it. His present, 
much more modest opinion he has stated as follows:* ‘ The 
enormous advantage which the Tantrakhyayika furnishes us lies 
in the fact that it is the only version which contains the unab- 
breviated and not intentionally altered language of the author, 
which no other Indian Pafecatantra version has preserved, 


? The inserted stories of the Tantrakhyayika are: I. 8 (Blue Jackal), I. 13 
(Jackal outwits Camel and Lion), Il. 4 (Weaver Somilaka); in « alone, « II. 5 
(Treacherous Bawd); in @ alone, III. 7 (King Sivi), @ III. 11 (Fox and Talking 
Cave), III. 11 of edition (Old Hansa), IV.1 (Punisht Onion-thief), 8 IV. 3 
(Potter as Warrior). There are lacunae in « at the places where § has the 
first, third, and fourth of the five last named. All but one (King Sivi) of 
these nine stories occur somewhere in some one or other of the other recensions 
included in my study. Nevertheless I think they can all be shown pretty 
conclusively to be secondary. Hertel also regards them as secondary. He 
likewise holds several other stories found in both recensions, and one story 
(Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief) found only in # (Appendix, @ III. 6), 
to be certainly or possibly secondary. I shall show later that there seem 
to be good grounds for considering them original. 


* ZDMG. 69. 113 (year 1915); this is the latest statement on the subject 
from Hertel which I have seen. 


-~ 


Hertel’s views of the Tantrakhyayika 1d 


while the Pahlavi translation distorts it by numerous misunder- 
standings.” This is qualified elsewhere by the admission that 
in addition to the ‘‘ unabbreviated ... language of the author ”’ 
it contains also numerous additions and interpolations from 
later hands.* But even thus qualified, the statement seems to 
me misleading in two respects. 

First, I think that many of the alterations (which are after 
all rather numerous in the aggregate, if proportionally few; 
they. certainly mount into the hundreds) made by the Tantra- 
khyayika in the text of the original were probably just as 
‘intentional’ as the alterations made in other versions. Surely 
the insertions, which Hertel himself admits were numerous, 
must have been ‘ intentional” alterations; and if the redactor 
of the Tantrakhyayika “intentionally ’’ changed the text in 
one way, why should he not have done so in another? In 
fact I think it can be proved that he or his archetype did, 
almost surely ‘intentionally,’ make many changes—including 
both omissions and substitutions—in the original author’s words. 

Secondly, I think it is a very serious exaggeration to describe 
the advantage which the Tantrakhyayika has over the other 
versions in this respect as ‘ enormous” (ungehewer). All the 
Sanskrit versions which I have used in this work contain some 
of the original author’s words. The mainly prosaic recensions 
(Southern Pancatantra, Hitopadesa, “textus simplicior,” Ptrna- 
bhadra) show, by the extent to which they agree verbally with 
the Tantrakhyayika and with each other, that to a not incon- 
siderable extent (tho, I grant, not to the same extent as Tantra- 
khyayika) they too “contain the unabbreviated and not [in- 
tentionally] altered language of the author.’’ The same was 
true of the Sanskrit original of the Pahlavi. And when these 
other versions differ from the Tantrakhyayika, it is not by 
any means safe to assume that the Tantrakhyadyika is more 
original than they. Especially is this true of the Southern 
Paneatantra. To be sure, the Southern Pafcatantra abbreviates 
the text to a considerable extent. But it is equally true—and 
this is what Hertel seems to overlook—that it contains a 


4 Hertel actually admits more interpolations in the text of Tantrakhyayika 
than I should; at least, he regards as insertions, certain or probable, several 
stories which I consider genuine. 


16 Chapter Il: The materials 


very large proportion of the original text in unabbreviated, 
or only slightly abbreviated, form. In a great many sentences 
it agrees literatim with other versions, especially the Tantra- 
khyayika. And it has one great advantage over the Tantrakhya- 
yika, that it has almost no interpolations. Nearly everything 
which it contains is taken from the original, at least in general 
sense, and largely in exact language.—l shall point out in 
dealing with the various other versions, especially the two 
Jain versions (“Simplicior” and Pirnabhadra), that Hertel 
underestimates their value, also, as representatives of the original. 

The Tantrakhyayika has no privileged position among Panca- 
tantra versions.—In short, the difference between the Tantra- 
khyayika and the other versions, in their relations to the 
original, is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind. 
All are to a considerable extent original. All are to a not in- 
considerable extent unoriginal. On the whole, the Tantrakhya- 
yika contains more of the original than any other. But it would 
not be true to say that a greater proportion of the text of the 
Tantrakhyayika is original than of any other. In this respect 
it is surpast by the Southern Paficatantra, which has much 
less unoriginal material than the Tantrakhyayika, and probably 
less than any other version,® except the greatly abbreviated 
and versified Somadeva. And I would lay special emphasis on 
tlie words “on the whole,” italicized above. In spite of all his 
reservations, Hertel tends to assume much too lightly that the 
language of the Tantrakhyayika is the language of the original 
Pancatantra. In my opinion this can never be assumed without 
confirmation from some other version. And there are, all in 
all, a good many cases in which not only is such confirmation 
lacking, but on the contrary the other versions prove quite. 
conclusively that the Tantrakhyayika’s language is wnoriginal, 
See Chapter VIT below, where I have collected fully two hundred 
such cases.° 


° It might be equalled in this respect by the Sanskrit original of the 
Pahlavi, if we had it. 

° Over-confidence in Hertel’s opinion has misled many scholars, including 
myself in the past, in this respect. Thus in 4/P. 36.53 I drew the same 
distinction that Hertel draws between the Tantrakhyayika and all other 
versions, stating that the latter were all “deliberately and radically recon- 


Tantrakhyayika—Southern Paieatantra Wt 


On the relation of the Tantrakhyayika to the Jain versions, 
see below page 36ff. 


~ 


Tur SouTuERN PAaNcATANTRA AND RELATED VERSIONS 


The Southern Paiicatantra (abbreviated SP).’—As the name 
implies, this version is characteristic of Southern India. Its 
numerous manuscripts are groupt by its editor, Hertel, in five 
subrecensions, which he ealls «, 8, y, 6, and § He considers « 
the best and most original subrecension, on the whole; and in 
this he is clearly right. The readings of the « manuscripts, as 
quoted by him, regularly (tho not invariably) tend to agree 
more closely with other versions than those of the % manu- 
scripts. The other three subrecensions contain many secondary 
insertions and are in general inferior. The readings of the 
subrecensions « and @ often differ considerably,—more than 
those of the Tantrakhyayika « and @, for instance. In view of 
the general superiority of a, it is unfortunate that Hertel in 
his edition chose to ignore « in constituting the text which he 
prints, using ~ exclusively, even in the many cases where § 
is corrupt and « gives us the true reading. This means that 
anyone who wishes to make any scientific use of the Southern 
Paficatantra must go to the great trouble of searching thru 
the wilderness of Hertel’s critical apparatus for the readings 


structed’, so as to be “really quite new works.” So also Thomas, JAS. 
1910, p. 971: “The differences which mark off the other redactions [than 
Tantr.] are of an order practically precluding textual comparison; they 
belong to the higher criticism, involving omissions and insertions of whole 
stories... in fact recasting of a drastic character.” I now realize that such 
views must be abandoned. Both Thomas and I, like many others, were too 
easily imprest by the extreme confidence of Hertel’s statements. Thomas 
frankly stated in the same article (p. 970) that he had not undertaken a 
real verification of Hertel’s theories, since that “ would demand an amount 
of time comparable to that spent upon it by Dr. Hertel himself.” Having 
now spent such an amount of time upon it, I feel better able to distinguish 
the sound from the unsound in Hertel’s work. 

7 The editio princeps, by M. Haberlandt (Sitzungsberichte of the Vienna 
Academy, phil.-hist. K1., Bd. 107, p. 397 ff.) is now superseded by the following: 
Das siidliche Paficatantra. Sanskrittext der Rezension 8 mit den Lesarten der 
besten Hss. der Rezension « Herausgegeben von Johannes Hertel. Leipzig, 1906. 
(Abh. d. phil-hist. Kl. d. kgl. siichs. Ges. d. Wiss., Bd, 24, no. 5.) No translation 
into a European language has yet appeared. 


Edgerton, Pancatantra, II, “ 


18 Chapter II: The materials 


of the « manuscripts on every single word,—a wearisome and 
eratuitous labor which Hertel ought to have spared the users 
of his book.® | 
Extent to which the Southern Paiicatantra preserves the original 
text.—As Hertel has repeatedly stated, the Southern Pafnea- 
tantra gives us a text which is, at least to some degree, an 
abstract. The abbreviation of the original is, however, not so 
drastic as one might suppose from reading Hertel’s statements. 
Every original story is preserved. The general sense of the 
narrative is faithfully followed, as a rule. Seldom is an essen- 
tial feature omitted or obscured by abbreviation. More than 
this: a large number of individual sentences are taken over 
from the original, either verbatim, or with only slight changes. 
[ estimate that more than three-quarters of the bulk of the 
prose found in the original is found, at least as to general 


° Hertel’s reason for this procedure was a passionate opposition, amounting 
almost to a mania, to what he calls “ eclecticism.” According to him, the 
x manuscripts of the Southern Paficatantra are not complete enuf to make 
it possible to print their text in its entirety; and so, rather than ‘ contami- 
nate” the § text with the readings of other subrecensions, he chose to print 


the ‘ 


pure” text of 8 (with quantities of corruptions which are simply un- 
interpretable). These considerations do not seem to me valid. It is not 
“eclecticism” to print the best text available of an individual recension, 
such as SP, using all manuscripts of that recension, whatever their inter- 
relationship. A subrecension, so-called, is not an independent version; it is 
merely a convenient grouping of manuscripts. All the subrecensions (if the 
word is properly used) represent ultimately one and the same text. There 
is no scientific interest or value in the stupid scribal blunders of SP$, which 
distort so much of the printed text of the Southern Paficatantra; and there 
is very little interest in the still more numerous variations of 8 which are 
grammatically and semantically possible, but shown by agreements of the 
® manuscripts with other versions to be secondary. What we should have’ 
desired of Hertel is the best approach possible to the true ‘“ Urtext” of the 
Southern Paficatantra.—That Hertel made this error of judgment, to the 
great inconvenience of all users of his edition, is all the more surprizing 
in view of the contrary system which he (very rightly) adopted in editing 
the Tantrakhyayika. In that case, altho he regards Tantrakhyayika « as 
more original than §, he does not hesitate to reject its readings in favor 
of those of 8 when the latter are (in his eyes) evidently required by the 
sense, nor to fill the extensive lacunae of the « mss. by the text of %. This 
is just as much “ eclecticism” as it would have been to print the text of 


~ Ia « © Ts « + . . 
Southern Pancatantra « so far as available, supplementing it by (; and no 
more so. 


Southern Paficatantra—Nepalese Paficatantra 19 


sense and to a considerable extent as to exact language, in 
the Southern Paficatantra.” The proportion of original verses 
preserved is only slightly less (more than two-thirds). The 
compression of SP should not obscure the fact that it does, 
after all, preserve very much of the original, and often more 
accurately than the Tantrakhyayika. 

Secondary additions in the Southern Pajicatantra.—The South- 
ern Paneatantra contains very few interpolations. There is 
one interpolated story (I. 12, Shepherdess and Lovers). There 
are avery few insertions or expansions in the prose narrative, 
and apparently a few inserted verses.!° Nearly the whole of 
the text may be regarded as representing the contents of the 
original Pancatantra. 

The Nepalese Paiicatantra (abbreviated N).—In 1905 Hertel 
received a copy of part of a Nepalese manuscript apparently 
intending to furnish the verses, only, of a Panecatantra recension 
nearly allied to the Southern Pancatantra. Later he received 
another copy containing the remaining portions of presumably 
the same manuscript. This Nepalese version™ contains nearly 
(tho not quite) all the verses contained in the « subrecension 
of the Southern Pancatantra. It also contains one single prose 
sentence found in the latter. Evidently this was included by 
the redactor under the impression that it was a verse. This 
circumstance incidentally shows—what we should assume a 
priori—that this recension was prepared on the basis of a 





® It must be remembered that Hertel’s printed text will not show this 
to anything like the extent that the « manuscripts shew it. 

10 We are compelled to regard, provisionally, as insertions such verses 
as appear only in the Southern Pajicatantra and the related Nepalese text 
and Hitopadesa. It is probable that most of them, at least, were not found 
in the original, as otherwise the chances are that some other version would 
preserve a trace of them. However, this can of course not be considered 
certain, and in view of the general rarity of insertions in SP, it is by no 
means unlikely that some of these verses may be inherited from the original. 
The fact that most of the verses are only loosely set in their surroundings, 
and that it is easy both to insert and to omit them, makes it more difficult 
to be sure of the secondary character of verses than of prose text-units which 
are found in only one stream of tradition. 

1 Edited by Hertel: Introduction and Books I—II1 in the “ Anmerkungen ” 
(p. 117 ff.) to his edition of the Southern Paificatantra; Books IV and V on 
p- XXVII of the Introduction to his edition of the Tantrakhyayika. 


O* 


20 Chapter II: The materials 


complete Paficatantra text containing, as usual, both prose and 
verses. Since the Nepalese text contains not a single verse or 
sentence that is not found in the Southern Pancatantra (a), it 
is safe to assume that its original was a text very similar to 
that. Since, however, it frequently happens that the Nepalese 
text has readings which are different from those of the Southern 
Paficatantra (all manuscripts), and since neither is consistently 
superior to the other, but each often has readings shown by 
the other Paficatantra versions to be more original than the 
other: therefore we may agree with Hertel in thinking that 
the Southern Paficatantra and the complete text on which the 
Nepalese is based were not identical, nor directly derived one 
from the other, but that they are closely related offshoots of 
the same archetype (which I would propose to eall the ‘ Ur- 
SP,” that is the archetype of the Southern Pancatantra). We 
shall presently see that the archetype of the Nepalese text 
(called by me ‘ Ur-N ”’) was the same as that of the Hitopadesa. 

The Hitopadesa (abbreviated H): its origin.17—'This is a version 
connected especially with Bengal, where it is very popular, 
and where it presumably originated. At any rate it has sup- 
planted all other Panicatantra versions in popular favor there. 
The author gives his own name as Narayana, and tells us that 
he used “the Pafcatantra and another work” in composing 
the Hitopadesa. He probably lived between 800 and 1873 
A. D.; it has not been possible to determine the date more 
exactly (Hertel, Pafic., p. 39). The version of the Paicatantra 


* Repeatedly edited, but a satisfactory critical edition is yet to be made. 
For my present investigation I have used the two best of those’accessible 
to me (Schlegel’s, unfortunately, was not accessible), namely: (1) Hitopadesa 
by Narayana. Edited by Peter Peterson. Bombay, 1887. (Bombay Sanskrit 
Series, no. XXXII.)—(2) Handbooks for the Study of Sanskrit. Edited by 
Max Miiller, M.A. I: The First Book of the Hitopadega ... London, 1864. 
Il: The Second, Third and Fourth Books of the Hitopadega ... London, 1865. 
—Miiller’s edition does not pretend to be critical or scholarly, being pro- 
fessedly a reader for beginners. Nevertheless it seems to me, on the whole, 
that the text is as good as Peterson’s. Each contains many original features 
that are changed in the other, so that they are both valuable for our purposes. 
Peterson’s edition claims to be critical; Hertel speaks slightingly (perhaps 
too slightingly) of its reliability——Numerois translations of the Hitopadesa 
have been made in most modern European languages. See Hertel, Pafic., 43 ff. 
A literal, interlinear translation is furnisht in Miiller’s edition. — 


Nepalese Paiicatantra—Hitopadesa Zl 


which he used was, as Hertel has indicated, apparently the 
same one (called by me ‘ Ur-N’’) which served as a basis for 
the Nepalese verse-text mentioned above; that is, a near relative 
of the Southern Paneatantra. This is shown by the following 
facts. (1) Books I and II of the Paiicatantra are transposed 
in the Nepalese text and the Hitopadesa, and in no other ver- 
sions. (2) The Hitopadesa, like the Nepalese text, contains 
most of the verses of the Southern Pancatantra (except those 
which occur in parts of the work omitted by it), and its read- 
ings tend strongly to agree with those of the Nepalese when 
the latter differs from the Southern Paficatantra. The Hito- 
padesa also contains a few verses of the Southern Paica- 
tantra which the Nepalese, perhaps by accident, omits. It 
contains practically no original Pafcatantra verses that are 
not found in the Southern Pafcatantra. (3) The prose text of 
the Hitopadesa, in so far as it belongs to the Pafcatantra 
tradition, tends to agree closely with that of the Southern 
Pancatantra. 

General plan of the Hitopadesa.—As already indicated, the 
Hitopadesa is a combination of Panecatantra materials with 
those of some other, unnamed work (or works?). Its general 
plan appears to have been largely original with its author. To 
be sure, the transposition of Pancatantra Books I and II goes 
back, as we have seen, to its immediate Pancatantra archetype. 
And the frame-work of these two books is mainly preserved 
in Hitopadesa Books If and I. But the rest of the work is 
quite new in plan. Instead of five books, the Hitopadesa has 
only four. Its third book has as its frame a story which is 
only a remote reflex of Pancatantra Book III. The frame of 
its fourth book is wholly new, tho evidently intended as a 
companion-piece to Book III and suggested by the title of the 
original Panecatantra’s third book.'® Book IV of the Pancatantra 
is wholly omitted; the stories of Book V, including the frame- 
story, are included as emboxt stories in Hitopadesa Books I] 


13 Patic. Book III is entitled “War and Peace” and narrates the story 
of a war between the crows and the owls. Hit. Book II is called “ War” 
and tells the story of a war between two other species of birds, the “ raja- 
hansas” and the peacocks; its Book IV is called “ Peace” and tells how 
peace was made between the same two parties. 


22 Chapter II: The materials 


and IV. Several of the emboxt stories of Pancatantra Book I 
are transferred to the Hitopadesa’s new Book IV; those of 
Paneatantra Book III are impartially divided between Hito- 
padega Books III and IV; not a few stories of the first three 
books of the Pafcatantra are omitted altogether, and various 
stories not found in the Pancatantra are inserted in all four 
books of the Hitopadesa, presumably from the unnamed ‘ other 
work” referred to by Narayana. 

Extent to which the Hitopadesa preserves the original text.— 
In spite of this extensive rearrangement of its materials, the 
Hitopadesga is of considerable value for the reconstruction of 
the original Pancatantra. It preserves most of the frame-stories 
of Books I and II, and over half of the emboxt stories of the 
entire Paneatantra. More important is this fact: in so far as 
it uses a Pancatantra archetype at all, it tends to follow it 
rather closely, not only in general sense, but in exact language, 
altho there are stories in which, by exception, it departs widely. 
I estimate that it contains at least the general sense of not 
far from two-fifths of the prose, and nearly one-third of the 
verses, of the original Pancatantra. If the first two books of 
the Pancatantra be considered separately, the proportion of 
their materials preserved in the Hitopadesa would be higher 
(perhaps one-half of the prose and two-fifths of the verses). 
Since its Paneatantra archetype was closely allied to the 
Southern Pancatantra, it will be found that it tends to agree 
in general with the readings of that text. But it forms a 
valuable check on them, and not infrequently shows superior 
readings, agreeing with other versions against the Southern 
Pancatantra. To a considerable extent it replaces for us the 
lost prose of the archetype of the Nepalese verse-text. It 
even contains, tho rarely, sections of the original which are 
entirely omitted in all our manuscripts of the Southern Paiiea- 
tantra, 

Secondary additions in the Hitopadesa.—We have spoken 
already of the numerous new stories found in the Hitopadesa. 
Aside from these, there oceur, in the stories and parts of 
stories taken from the Pafcatantra, a considerable number of 
inserted verses, and some expansions of the prose narrative. 
The latter are, however, not numerous, 


Hitopadesa—Brhatkatha versions 23 


ad 


Tut BroarkatuA Versions (SoMADEVA AND KsEMENDRA) 


The Pajicatantra’s position in the Brhatkatha.—The studies 
of F. Lacdte'* in the existing descendants of the great story- 
collection, in Prakrit verse, called the Brhatkatha and attri- 
buted to Gunadhya, have made it practically certain that the 
original text of that work contained no version of the Pafca- 
tantra. But, according to Lacdte—and his arguments seem 
strong, tho not perhaps absolutely compelling, on this point 
too—a version of it was contained in a later recast, and ex- 
pansion, of the Brhatkatha, made at an uncertain date apparently 
in northwest India,—perhaps in Kashmir. Lacdéte believes that 
this recast, too, and consequently the Paicatantra version con- 
tained in it, was composed in Prakrit verse, in the dialect 
ealled Paisaci. This northwestern Brhatkatha, like its archetype, 
the original work, is lost to us. It is known only thru two later 
versions: Somadeva’s Kathasaritsagara (or, as it was perhaps 
ealled originally, Brhatkathasaritsagara; see Speyer, Studies 
about the Kathasaritsagara, Amsterdam, 1908), and Ksemendra’s 
BrhatkathamanjariI. Both of these works are in Sanskrit verse, 
and both were composed in Kashmir, probably in the eleventh 
century A.D. The evidence of these two works seems to prove 
that the Pancatantra version contained in their common ori- 
ginal was very radically abbreviated. Apparently it omitted 
the Introduction and at least one story of the original (I. 3). 
Certainly it aimed to tell the tales as briefly as possible, and 
contained few, if any, expansions, while omitting many features 
of the original which seemed to its author unessential. Especially 
the verses of the original suffered in the abbreviation. Very 
few of them survived.!® The reason for this is clear; most of 
the verses are moralizing, proverbial stanzas, and are not a 
real part of the narrative at all. 

Effect of language and versification on the Brhatkatha versions. 
—If Lacéte is right in supposing that Somadeva and Ksemendra 





14 Particularly in his Hssai sur Gunddhya et la Brhatkathad, Paris, 1908. 

1° Only about one-fifth of all the verses of the original have traces pre- 
served in Somadeva and Ksemendra together (counting those which occur 
in one but not in the other). And a number of these are ‘ catch-verses ”’ 
of stories, not the ordinary proverbial stanzas. 


24 Chapter II: The materials 


go back to an original, the northwestern Brhatkatha, which 
was composed in the Paisaci Prakrit, then it follows that the 
Sanskrit of these two versions is a retranslation of a trans- 
lation. This would lead us to expect that little, if any, of the 
exact language of the original could be preserved in them. 
Add to this consideration their poetic form, and their drastic 
abbreviation, and it would seem hard to believe that they 
could give us many words just as the original had them. 
Nevertheless we find in the aggregate quite a good many such, 
altho few in comparison with the mainly prosaic Sanskrit 
recensions. The preservation—or restoration—of some words 
of the original Sanskrit after two translations can be explained 
by the fact that the first translation was into a Prakritic dialect, 
that is a dialect closely related to Sanskrit, which preserved 
the bulk of the Sanskrit vocabulary, with only the usual pho- 
netic and morphological changes in the words.. Hence it is not, 
after all, surprising that some of these words were retranslated 
into the same Sanskrit words that were found in the original. 
So it happens that these versions are of some help in determin- 
ing even the exact language of the original. There are, howe- 
ver, few, if any, entire sentences or verses of the original 
that are preserved intact in them.?® 

Ksemendra (abbreviated Ks).1’—Ksemendra’s text is the most 
drastically abbreviated of all those which I have used. It carries 
the abbreviation much farther than its supposed archetype, 
the lost northwestern Hrhatkatha, apparently did,—at least 
much farther than Somadeva does. Nevertheless it contains 


- 7° One or two cases in which this is approximately the case in Ksemendra 


may be due to its borrowings from the Tantrakhydyika; see below. 

“ The Paiicatantra section of Ksemendra has been edited by itself: Der 
Auszug aus dem Paficatantra in Kshemendras Brihatkathamafijari. Kinleitung, 
Text, Obersetzung und Anmerkungen von Leo von Matkowski, Dr. iur, et 
phil. Leipzig, 1892. Most of Manikowski’s text is based upon a single 
imperfect manuscript. The editor emends freely, sometimes judiciously, but 
often unsuccessfully. On the whole more useful, because more complete and 
based on more manuscripts (whose variants are quoted), is the text found in 
the following edition of Ksemendra’s complete work: The Brihatkathémaiijari 
of Kshemendra, Edited by Mahamahopadyaya Pandit Sivadatta... and 
Kashinath Pandurang Parab. Bombay, 1901. (Kavyamala 69.) Paficatantra 
on pp. 561ff. I have collated the text of the Paficatantra in both these editions. 


6 
Ksemendra a 


Or 


five stories which were not found in the original.'® All of these 
interpolated stories are found in Tantrakhyayika 8, one of 
them in no other version used by me, and another nowhere 
else at the same place, while none of the five occurs outside 
of Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions (which latter, as 
we shall see, used the same secondary archetype as Tantr.). 
These facts seem to justify us in believing with Hertel that 
if Ksemendra’s principal archetype was the northwestern Brhat- 
katha, he must have used also a manuscript of Tantrakhya- 
yika. For this reason other agreements between Ksemendra 
and Tantrakhyayika cannot be considered as evidence bearing 
on the original. As a matter of fact Ksemendra’s text is so 
mangled by abbreviation that he gives us comparatively little 
help in reconstructing even the general sense of the original; 
and he seldom preserves any of the original words, from what- 
ever source. He includes, to be sure, all the stories of the 
original except the Introduction and I. 3, being thus more 
complete than Somadeva; but as the stories lacking in Soma- 
deva may have been taken by Ksemendra from the Tantra- 
khyayika, we cannot assume that they occurred in the supposed 
northwestern Brhatkatha. And in spite of this relative complete- 
ness of his materials, the major part of the prose narrative 
of the original (I estimate, fully fifty-five percent) and nearly all 
the original verses (close to ninety percent) are omitted without 
trace in Ksemendra. In short, the stories are cut to the bone (to 
the great detriment of the result, artistically speaking). Yet, since 
Ksemendra contains some matter that Somadeva lacks, we cannot 
entirely neglect him; tho we must remember the possibility that 
such matter may have been taken from the Tantrakhyayika. 

Secondary additions in Ksemendra, except the stories men- 
tioned above, are practically non-existent. 

Somadeva (abbreviated So).'°—In Somadeva’s Kathasaritsigara 
the five books of the Pancatantra are found separated from one 


18 These are I. 7 (Blue Jackal), I. 12 (Jackal outwits Camel and Lion), 
III. 11 (Old Hansa), [V. 1 (Punisht Onion-thief), and LV. 3 (Potter as Warrior.) 
IV. 1 occurs elsewhere only in Tantr., and III. 11 only in Tantr. in the 
same place (in Piirnabhadra in Book I). 

19 "There are two editions of Somadeva’s complete work. (1) Katha Sarit 
Sagara. Die Miirchensammlung des Somadeva. Herausgegeben von Hermann 


26 Chapter II: The materials 


another by extraneous materials. In this respect Hertel?° believes 
that Somadeva follows his original, the northwestern Brhatkatha. 
His work is characterized by a graceful and attractive style; 
his stories are well-told, and while no words are wasted, they 
are seldom eut down so as to spoil the artistic workmanship of 
the narrative. In both of these respects he contrasts favorably 
with Ksemendra. Somadeva lacks five stories of the original, 
besides the Introduction. To what extent these omissions go 
back to his supposed archetype, the northwestern Brhatkatha, 
cannot be determined with confidence.*! On the other hand he 
preserves considerably more than Ksemendra does of the bulk of 
the narrative. He contains at least traces of about three-fifths of 
the original prose. Of the original verses, of course, he gives 


Brockhaus. Leipzig: (Part I, Books 1—5) 1839, (Part II, Books 6—8) 1862, 
(Part III, Books 9—18) 1866. (The last two parts=Adhandlungen fiir die 
Kunde des Morgenlandes II. 5 and IV. 5.) The Paicatantra is found on pages 
111 ff. of Part Il. (2) The Kathésaritsdgara of Somadevabhatta, Edited by 
Pandit Durgdprasdd and Kasinath Pandurang Parab. Bombay, 1889. (Pajica- 
tantra, according to Hertel, Pafic. p. 32, on pages 355ff.) 2nd ed., Bombay, 
1903. (Paficatantra on pages 309ff.) I have compared thruout the texts of 
both Brockhaus and Durgaprasad and Parab (2nd ed.) for the Paficatantra 
section. The variants are few and usually unimportant.—The entire work 
of Somadeva has been translated into English: The Kathd Sarit Sdgara or 
Ocean of the Streams of Story, translated... by C. H. Tawney, M. A. 2 vols. 
Calcutta, 1880 and 1884. Paficatantra on pp. 27—43, 48—52, 64—75, 84—87, 
90—91 of Vol. 2. . 

2° See his monograph Lin altindisches Narrenbuch, Ber. ii. d. Verh. d. kgl. 
siichs. Ges. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. K1., 1912, Bd. 64, Heft 1. 

*1 We have seen that Ksemendra also lacks the Introduction and I. 3 
(Three Self-caused Mishaps), which therefore may be presumed to have been 
lacking in the northwestern Brhatkatha. Besides these Somadeva omits I. 4 
(Crows and Serpent), II. 4 (Deer’s Former Captivity), and the two emboxt 
stories of Book V (Brahman builds Aircastles, and Barber who killed the 
Monks). Of these II. 4 is properly only an unessential incident in the frame- 
story of Book II, and may have been lost in the process of shortening; 
many such incidents of the original are lost in the Brhatkatha versions. 
This same story was dropt, obviously for the same reason as here suggested, — 
by a late descendant of Piirnabhadra; see Hertel, Pajc., p- 117. I. 4 is par- 
ticularly interesting because it forms the frame for I. 5 in the original; 
Somadeva preserves I. 5 but not I. 4, and is therefore exceptionally awkward 
in the way he fits I. 5 into the frame. Hertel (Tantr. Kinleitung zur Uber- 
setzung p. 42) assumes—too hastily, I think—that this omission goes back 
to Somadeva’s original. It may do so, but there is no possibility of telling. 


* 7 6 
Somadeva—Jain versions 27 


us very much less (traces of a sixth to a fifth). In general 
he shows extraordinary fidelity to the sense of the original, 
in so far as he preserves it at all. There are few changes, 
and almost no insertions. Every story in Somadeva is (in my 
opinion) original, and almost every phrase givés us at least 
the sense of something original. For this reason, in spite of 
his brevity, he is very useful for the reconstruction. Moreover, 
there is no reason to suspect his text of being contaminated 
with an extraneous version, as Ksemendra’s is. 


? 


THe Jain Vursions (“ Srimpricior”’ aNd PoURYABHADRA) 


The so-called ‘textus simplicior’’ (abbreviated Spl).*?—The 
name ‘textus simplicior”’ goes back to Kosegarten, the first 
editor of this version, and is kept for want of a better, since 
its author’s name is unknown and the titles given in the ma- 
nuscripts (Paneakhyanaka, or Pancakhyana, ‘‘also called Pan- 
catantra’’) are not sufficiently distinctive (the former is applied 
also to Ptirnabhadra’s text). On the whole I agree with Hertel’s 
opinion that the author was probably a Jain, tho not all his 
arguments (summarized Pafic. p. 72f.) seem to me effective, 
and the sum total of them is perhaps not absolutely compelling. 
His date is put by Hertel between 900 and 1199 (the latter 
being the date of Ptrnabhadra, who used this text—or rather, 
I should say, its archetype). This version became very popular 
in western and central India, and, with other versions which 
are based on it largely or wholly, it has virtually crowded 
out all other Pancatantra recensions in those regions. I regret 
to say that the materials at my disposal for determining the 
text of Simplicior (as I shall call it for short) were less satis- 


2 The imperfect editio princeps, by Kosegarten (Bonn, 1848), has been 
supplanted by that publisht in the Bombay Sanskrit Series under the title 
Panchatantra (BSS I, Bombay 1868, edited by G. Biihler, contains Books IV 
and V; BSS III, 1868, also by Biihler, Books II and III; BSS IV, 1869, 
edited by F. Kielhorn, Introduction and Book I), This was not intended to 
be a critical scholarly edition, but merely a school textbook for beginners; 
it was apparently based on a single manuscript (see Kielhorn’s statement 
quoted by Hertel, ZDMG. 56, 298f.), and Hertel suspects that the authors 
corrected this manuscript from Kosegarten’s edition. No other edition can 
be used in a critical way at all; various prints by Hindu editors appear to 
be of little or no value. For translations see Hertel, Pavic., p. 75f. and p. 101. 


28 Chapter Il: The materials 


factory than the materials for any other recension. In addi- 
tion to the editions referred to in note 22, I had only such 
scattered information about the readings of various manuscripts 
as is given in various places by Hertel, especially in the ‘ Pa- 
rallel Specimens ”’ in Harvard Oriental Series 13. According to 
Hertel, the manuscripts fall into two groups or subrecensions, 
which he ealls the H-class and the ¢-class. To the latter be- 
longs the ms. used by Biihler-Kielhorn, to the former those 
principally used by Kosegarten. ‘‘ Of the two classes, each at 
times excels the other in the greater originality of an occa- 
sional passage.” ?5 It is therefore certain that the text of Sim- 
plicior studied and quoted by me is imperfect. A really critical 
edition of it would improve the readings in many places. But 
whether these improvements in the text of Simplicior would 
often have any important bearing on the reconstruction of the 
original, [ doubt. For, in the first place, the Simplicior happens 
to be of less importance in reconstructing the original than, 
perhaps, any other text used by me. And, in the second place, 
all its manuscripts appear to be sufficiently close to each other 
in their readings so that we may assume, on the theory of 
chances, that the coincidence of a serious divergence in their 
readings, with a passage in which Simplicior is of serious im- 
portance for the reconstruction, would be a rare one. This 
thesis I] have tested on the Parallel Specimens in HOS. 138, 
and find that it holds good. Not a single word of the original, 
as I reconstructed it without the use of any Simplicior text 
but Kielhorn-Biihler, had to be changed because of the read- 
ings of Simplicior manuscripts there quoted. 

General plan of Simplicior.—Like the Hitopadesa, this text 
handles the original rather freely. It keeps the five -books of 
the original, but makes considerable alterations in their con- 
tents. To begin with, it makes all five of more nearly equal 
length. In the original, Books IV and V are very short. Sim- 
plicior makes them about as long as the others. It transfers 


** Hertel, HOS. 12, p. 13. This statement seems to me to be proved quite 
conclusively by the Parallel Specimens, 7OS. 13. As to the further statement, 
op. cit. p. 14, that “the text of the H-class seems to me, on the whole, to 
be the more original one”, I have no means of verifying it. It hardly seems 
demonstrated by the small amount of material at my disposal. 


‘*Textus Simplicior ” 29 


to Book IV several of the stories of Book III, and inserts 
several new stories in Book IV. And most of its Book V is 
new. Moreover, it makes Story V. 2 of the original (The Bar- 
ber who killed the Monks) the frame-story of Book V, and 
emboxes within it the frame-story of the original Book V 
(Brahman and Mongoose), altering it at the same time. It also 
makes radical changes in the frame-stories of Books III and 
IV, so that they resemble the originals only in a general way. 
The same is true of some of the emboxt stories of Simplicior. 
And it adds a number of new stories in the first three books, 
as well as in the last two.—On the immediate archetype of 
Simplicior, and its relation to the Tantrakhyayika, see below, 
pages 31 ff., 36 f. 

Extent to which Simplicior preserves the original text.—In 
spite of these extensive alterations, Simplicior retains to a con- 
siderable extent not only the general sense of the original, 
but even its exact language. It must be used with caution, 
but can by no means be neglected in the reconstruction. Hertel 
says: *4 “As for the single stories, he [the author of Simplicior] 
not only altered their wording throughout, but also their pur- 
port.” It seems to me that this is a serious exaggeration. In 
many individual prose sentences (not to mention stanzas) it 
preserves nearly, if not quite, the exact language of the ori- 
ginal. Many of the stories are told in a manner substantially 
as close to the original as in the other versions. All that I 
should wish to say, as a general characterization, is that on 
the whole Simplicior is less faithful to the general sense of the 
original than any of the other versions previously dealt with, 
and that it is on the whole less faithful to the precise language 
of the original than any of the other mainly prosaic recen- 
sions. I find that it is much less faithful in preserving the 
verses of the original than the prose (as to its general sense, 
at least). This is curious, since it is by no means averse to 
stanzas; it inserts an enormous number of unoriginal stanzas. 
Yet it gives us only about one-third of the stanzas of the ori- 
ginal, while it has at least the general sense of probably two- 
thirds of the original prose. It is noteworthy that its fidelity 


MAB OS 129) py. 11. 


30 Chapter II: The materials 


to the original decreases as the work progresses. Its innovations 
become more markt in the third, fourth, and fifth books. It 
preserves the sense of probably four-fifths, or very nearly as 
much, of the original prose of Books I and II; while in the 
last three books the proportion sinks to not much more than 
one-half. Infidelities to the original consist partly in omissions,”° 
but more often, as regards the prose, in substitutions. Many 
of these substitutions are undoubtedly deliberate, tho usually 
unsuccessful, attempts to improve the story. But many others 
are doubtless due to mere carelessness or indifference. 

Of the stories which I believe to be original, Simplicior 
contains all but three;*° and it contains a remote variant of 
one of these in a different position. 

Secondary additions in Simplicior.—These have been perhaps 
sufficiently described already. Most striking is the enormous 
number of inserted verses, despite the fact that Simplicior 
leaves out approximately two-thirds of the verses of the original. 
How many of these were composed by the author of Simplicior, 
or his immediate archetype, it is hard to say; undoubtedly 
many, and probably most of them were taken from other 
sources, not belonging to the Pancatantra tradition. Insertions 
in the prose text of the stories are also not rare, and some- 
times very lengthy. They exceed in importance those that are 
found in any other version used by me, except Pirnabhadra, 
which used Simplicior as a source. 

Purnabhadra (abbreviated Pn).2’—We are on much surer 
ground regarding the text of this, the second Jainistie recen- 


*° It is, therefore, again an exaggeration when Hertel says (Paiic. p. 70): 
“die Jaina-Rezensionen kiirzen ihre Vorlage bzw. Vorlagen nicht, sondern 
erweitern sie.” This is doubtless true as a general proposition, but certainly 
not as an absolute rule. It is, however, true, as Hertel says (l.c¢.), that 
Simplicior goes back to an approximately complete version of the work, 
not to an abbreviation such as the Southern Paficatantra. 

°° These are Il. 4 (Deer’s Former Captivity, really only an incident in 
the frame-story of Book II, ef. page 26, note 21), III. 7 (Brahman, Thief 
and Ogre), and II. 10 (Frogs ride Serpent). A remote variant of the last- 
named appears as Simplicior IV. 1. 

*7 Edition: The Panchatantra... in the Ttecension, called Panchakhyanaka... 
of... Purnabhadra, Critically edited ... by Dr. Johannes Hertel. Cambridge, 
1908. (Harvard Oriental Series 11.) An introduction and critical apparatus 


Simplicior—Pirnabhadra 351 


sion of the Paneatantra, which has been shown by Hertel’s 
researches to have been composed probably in the year 1199 a. p. 
by the Jain monk Ptrnabhadra. The text of this version seems 
to be in very satisfactory shape; there is little doubt that as 
printed by Hertel it comes very close to the manuscript of 
the author. The differences in the oldest manuscripts are, in 
Hertel’s opinion, insignificant. 

General plan of Pirnabhadra: his two main sources, Tantra- 
khyayika and Simplicior.—It is quite clear that the most of 
Purnabhadra’s text presents the aspect of a mosaic of the texts 
of the Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior—or of texts closely re- 
sembling these two as we have them. This much is sufficiently 
indicated by a glance at Hertel’s Parallel Specimens in HOS. 
vol. 13; for they are quite typical of the most of the work. 
It is perhaps even more strikingly proved by the faet, which I 
shall show below (page 71f.), that in a number of places the 
mosaic-work is done so unskillfully that we find in Purna- 
bhadra two different versions of the same passage, one copied 
from the Tantrakhyayika and the other from Simplicior (or 
from a closely similar source in each case). It appears that 
Pirnabhadra kept before him copies of these two main sour- 
ces, and for the most part literally followed one or the other, 
as seemed best to him. As to general plan, Tantrakhyayika 
and Simplicior differ little in Books [ and II. Their principal 
differences appear in Books III, IV, and V, and in these I 
think that Ptrnabhadra uniformly followed the general plan 
of his Simplicior archetype, which I call the ‘ Ur-Simplicior.” 
This “ Ur-Simplicior” differed from our Simplicior text in 
one important respect. We have seen that the frame-story of 
Book III is wholly changed in our Simplicior, and that a number 
of the emboxt stories of Book III are transposed to Book IV. 
In the ‘‘ Ur-Simplicior,” which Ptrnabhadra follows, apparently 
only part of this alteration had taken place. The first part of 
the frame is altered, and the first emboxt story (Ass in Pan- 
ther’s, or Tiger’s, Skin) transposed to Book IV. But the later 


to this volume appeared in HOS. 12 (1912), and a companion volume of 
parallel specimens in HOS. 13 (1912). A German translation entitled Das 
Paficatantram (lextus ornatior), by Richard Schmidt, appeared at Leipzig 
(undated; publisht 1901). 


a2 Chapter II: The materials 


part of the frame—the consultation of the owl-king with his 
ministers—is retained substantially as in the original; and sto- 
ries 6, 8, and 9 of the original Book III remain in Book III, 
and are not transposed to Book IV, as they are in our Sim- 
plicior. That this is the case, and that Ptrnabhadra’s superior 
originality as compared with our Simplicior is not due to his 
following the Tantrakhyayika or any other version, seems to 
me to be made probable by the following facts. First, Ptrna- 
bhadra agrees mainly with our Simplicior thruout Book IV, 
and differs from it most strikingly in the omission of just 
these three stories which originally belonged to Book III. 
Secondly, and much more compellingly: in the entire text of 
the stories III. 6 (Old Man, Young Wife and Thief), III. 8 
(Cuckold Carpenter), and in the latter part of II]. 9 (Mouse 
Maiden), Pirnabhadra agrees almost word for word with the 
text of Simplicior. (See my Critical Apparatus for the evidence.) 
It is obvious that he must have got these entire stories (ex- 
cept the first part of III. 9, in which he follows Tantrakhyayika) 
from a Simplicior manuscript. But he places the stories, not 
in the place to which all our manuscripts of Simplicior have 
transposed them, in Book IV, but in their original place, in 
Book III, where all other versions including Tantrakhyayika 
have them. It seems to me hardly likely that he would have 
done this if he had used our text of Simplicior. Had he done 
so, he would probably have given these stories either in the 
position in which Simplicior has them, or in the wording in 
which Tantrakhyayika has them. I can searcely think that he 
would have followed the order of Tantrakhyayika, but gone 
to the fourth book of a version of Simplicior and, extracted 
from it the language of the corresponding stories found there.** 


*’ I differ in this regard from Hertel, who believes that Pirnabhadra 
used manuscripts of both of the subrecensions of Simplicior, ‘“H” and “oc”, 
but not an older Simplicior text to which both vo back. The former propo- 
sition he bases on the fact that at times Purnabhadra agrees with each of 
the two subrecensions, in turn, in superior readings. This would be adequately 
explained by the supposition which I make, that he used a text much older 
and more original than either subrecension. The second proposition, which 
denies my assumption, he bases (HOS. 12, p. 14) on the circumstance that 
‘in some places either the H-class or the o-class is more original than 
Purnabhadra’s text.” He does not quote the passages which he has in mind. 


Plan and sources of Pirnabhadra 33 


Except to this extent, Pirnabhadra agrees quite closely with 
our Simplicior in Books III, [V, and V. In Books I and II 


But I would suggest that such cases are doubtless due to secondary and 
independent variations made by Pirnabhadra himself. Of such there is no 
lack. Or, some of them may be due to Pirnabhadra’s use of another version 
than Simplicior—whether Tantrakhyayika, or some other. From such out- 
side sources, which we know he used, he may at times have borrowed 
readings that are secondary in comparison with either Simplicior subrecen- 
sion, or both. 

It may be of interest to note here that there are some later Hindu 
versious of the Paficatantra, based mainly on Simplicior or Purnabhadra 
or both, which are closer to the original Paficatantra than either of them 
in one respect, at least, namely, that the story of the Ass in the Panther’s 
(or Tiger’s) Skin appears in its original place, as the first emboxt story of 
Book III, and is not transferred to Book IV as in both Simplicior and 
Pirnabhadra. (Some of these versions repeat the story in Book IV, where 
Simplicior and Pirnabhadra have it.) Among these versions are: the manu- 
script “E” (Hertel, Pafic., p. 104), Ratnasundara’s Kathakallola (op. cit. 
p- 172 ff.), Vaccharaja’s Paficakhyana, Caupai (op. cit. p. 199ff.), and Megha- 
vijaya’s Paficdkhyanoddhara (op. cit. p. 105ff.). This might seem to suggest 
that they used a still older form of the Simplicior than the one used by 
Ptrnabhadra, and that in the Simplicior used by them even the first part 
of Book III was retained essentially in its original form. Unfortunately the 
data furnisht by Hertel (which are all that I have to judge by) are not 
sufficient to make it possible to decide this question definitely. But such in- 
formation as he furnishes is not favorable to that assumption. On the contrary, 
it seems to indicate that these late recensions got their version of the story 
of the Ass in the Panther’s Skin directly or indirectly from a different 
recension, not belonging to the Simplicior tradition at all. In one case this 
different recension was certainly the Tantrakhyayika; and it was perhaps 
the same in the case of the others. Namely: the text of this particular story 
as found in the manuscript “E” is quoted by Hertel, ZDMG. 56. 317f. 
Now it happens that this particular story is told in very different terms in 
the several Pafic. versions (see my Critical Apparatus). Notably the Jain 
versions (Simplicior and Pirnabhadra), tho agreeing very closely with each 
other, are very different from Tantrakhyayika. But the manuscript “E” 
agrees so closely with the Tantrakhyadyika (in spite of verbal variations) 
that there can be no doubt that it got its text from the latter, as Hertel 
suggests. (The other Sanskrit texts are sufficiently different to prove that 
they could not have been concerned.) It will be obvious to anyone who 
cares to examine the text of ‘‘ EK,” in comparison with the readings of the 
versions quoted in my Critical Apparatus, that ‘E”’, tho its primary sources 
are Simplicior and Putrnabhadra, interpolated this particular story from a 
Tantrakhyayika manuscript, directly or indirectly. On the catch-verse of 
the story in “HK,” see the next paragraph but one. 

Edgerton, Paficatantra, II. 3 


34 Chapter If: The materials 


he tends perhaps rather to agree with the general plan of 
Tantrakhyayika than with our Simplicior (but the differences 


As to the other late versions referred to, the only one whose version 
of this story is furnisht by Hertel is that of Meghavijaya (partial text and 
complete analysis in ZDMG. 57. 639ff.). According to Hertel, Meghavijaya 
used as his source a version which depended on Vaccharaja, and the latter 
in turn was dependent on Ratnasundara. If this is the case, Ratnasundara’s 
version of the story of the Ass in the Panther’s (or Tiger’s) Skin would 
presumably decide the question of the ultimate origin of the story as found 
in these three recensions. Hertel does not quote either Ratnasundara’s or 
Vaccharaja’s text of the story; and Meghavijaya’s text is a drastic abbreviation, 
consisting of only a few lines. It is not enuf like any of the older versions 
to make it possible to decide its origin. It does, indeed speak of a tiger’s 
(vyaghra-) skin, rather than a panther’s (dvzpi-), agreeing to that extent 
with Simplicior and Pirnabhadra; but in this respect its prose story may 
have been influenst by the catch-verse; and, as I am about to show, this 
would not decide the question. 

The catch-verse in these four late versions needs more careful con- 
sideration, In the ms. “E” it reads: 


suciramn hi caran nityath Sreyah sasyam abuddhiman 
vyaghracarmapratichanno vakkrte rasabho hatah. 


In Meghavijaya it reads exactly in the same way but for the following 
variations, all of which, there is reason to believe, are secondary, and some 
of which are obvious corruptions: b, sresthari Sasyair sa (!) buddhiman; ¢, 
°pratipanno; a, vydkrte(!). The verse as given by Ratnasundara and Vaccha- 
raja is not quoted in full by Hertel, but he tells us (Pafic. p. 201) that 
they are like Meghavijaya in having the corruptions sasyam (or ga°) sa 
buddhiman, and vyakkrte (or vyakrte). It appears that we may safely assume 
that all four of these recensions have the catch-verse essentially as in “EK.” 

Let us examine the catch-verse in the older Sanskrit recensions. The 
Tantrakhyayika has this form: 


sucirain hi caran nityarh grigme sasyam abuddhiman 
dvipicarmapratichanno vakkrtad risabho hatah. 


: 


The Southern Paficatantra agrees except for °parichanno in ¢ and vagdosad 
in d. The Nepalese text and the Hitopadega agree with Southern Paficatantra 
but also read Sreyah (Hit. Miiller ksetre) for grtsme, and sasyam (N corrupt) 


8) 


for sa°, and gardabho for radsabho. The Jain versions (Simplicior and 


Piirnabhadra), however, have a wholly different first half verse: 
suguptamm raksyamano ‘pi darSayan darunam vapuh. 


In the second half verse they agree with Tantrakhyayika except that 
they read vyaghra° for dvipi’, and vakkrte. Consistently with the former 
change, they speak in the following prose story of a tiger’s skin, not a 
panther’s skin, All the other versions make it a panther’s (dvzpi-) skin, 


Plan and sources of Piirnabhadra a5 


in these books are not very great, and possibly the Simplicior 
text which he used may have been more like Tantrakhyayika, 


except Southern Pafcatantra and HitopadeSa, the former of which once, 
and the latter regularly, also make it a tiger’s skin in the prose story, tho 
reading dvtpi®? in the catch-verse (did they take dvipi- in the sense of 
‘tiger,’ a sense attributed to it in Hindu lexicons? SP in the prose 
elsewhere uses dvipi-!), 

From these facts it seems clear that: (1) The ms. ‘ E,” whose prose text 
follows Tantrakhyayika exclusively (and—NB.—always has dvipi°?, not 
vyaghra®), has a contaminated form of the verse, in which the first half 
agrees with the older versions including Tantr. (except that it agrees with 
Nep. and Hit. in sreyah for grisme, an interesting but probably secondary 
agreement, since Southern Pajic., the nearest relative of Nep. and Hit., 
agrees with Tantr., indicating that Nep. and Hit. go back to a version which 
had this reading); but in the second half “EK” agrees with Simplicior and 
Ptrnabhadra. We must remember that the catch-verse to this favorite and 
widespread fable was doubtless a familiar proverb, and that slight variations 
in it may mean only that a particular redactor had heard a different 
version quoted orally. So the variations in the second half may be ex- 
plained;—and even the inconsistency (vyaghra : dvipi) between the verse 
and the prose fable has a parallel in the Hitopadesa. But the difference in 
the first half is too markt to be accidental. This first half must certainly 
have been drawn by “E”’’s source from a text close to the Tantrakhyayika 
—and not from the Jain versions. That is, the first half verse was doubtless 
taken from the same source from which ‘“E” drew the prose text of the 
fable. (The agreement with Nep. and Hit. in reading sreyah is, as I said, 
doubtless an accidental coincidence; ‘‘K”’s prose text, at least, shows no 
relation at all to the SP-Nep.-Hit. group of versions.) The second half it 
may have contaminated from the Jain versions which were its principal 
sources. 

(2) But the more important point is this. From Hertel’s statements, 
Ratnasundara, Vaccharaja, and Meghavijaya present practically the same 
form of the catch-verse—in both: halves—that “E” does. It seems not 
overbold to guess that they have a common source. And if they have a 
common source for the catth-verse, it-would not be strange if they had a 
common source for the prose text too. But, as we have seen, the prose 
text of ‘“E” unquestionably. goes back, directly or indirectly, to an inter- 
polation from the Tantrakhyayika. This is evidently the reason for the 
position of the story in ‘“ E,” as Story 1 of Book III, instead of in Book IV 
where Simplicior and Putrnabhadra have it. Since Ratnasundara etc. have 
the story in the same position, may we not provisionally guess that the 
same circumstance has the same explanation, and that these versions too 
go back directly or indirectly to the Tantrakhyayika in this story? Of 
course, this can only be a provisional hypothesis. But at least there is at 
present no reason for supposing that these versions point to a form of the 

3% 


36 Chapter II: The materials 


cf. the preceding paragraph), while including most of the 
interpolated stories of both Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior and 
a goodly number of others. 

The ‘ Ur-Tantrakhyayika,” source of the ‘“ Ur-Simplicior’’ and 
the Tantrakhyayika.—These two principal sources of Putrna- 
bhadra appear to go back directly to a common archetype, 
which I call for convenience the “ Ur-Tantrakhyayika.” It 
differed from the original Pancatantra in having at least three *® 
interpolated stories, and an uncertain number of minor expan- 
sions and additions of both prose and verses. Whether it also 
contained omissions is necessarily uncertain, since even when 
such are found in common in Tantrakhyaéyika and the Jain 
versions, we cannot be sure that they have not occurred in- 
dependently. In any case they were few in number.—That the 
Tantrakhyayika and the “ Ur-Simplicior”’ are sister-versions, 
and that neither was derived directly from the other, seems 


‘“Ur-Simplicior” in which the transposition of the story to Book 1V had 
not yet taken place. 

On page 189 of Hertel’s Paficatantra he mentions another point in 
which Ratnasundara agrees with Tantrakhyayika; but he there expresses 
the opinion that the agreement is not due to borrowing, and states that he 
has found no traces of the use of Tantrakhyayika by Ratnasundara. This 
Opinion deserves weight, and makes me more hesitant revarding the suggestion 
made above. Yet it can of course not be regarded as final. Only the text 
of Ratnasundara’s story can decide the matter. It is unfortunate that Hertel 
failed to present it. 

*° Tantrakhyayika I. 8 (Blue Jackal), I. 13 (Jackal outwits Camel and 
Lion), Il. 4 (Weaver Somilaka). These occur only in Tantr., Simpl., Ptrn. 
and (the first two) in Ksemendra, which doubtless borrowed them from the 
' Tantrakhyayika (see page 25), There are good reasons for, denying that 
any of them belonged to the original Paficatantra. I believe that the “ Ur- 
Tantrakhyayika”’ also contained III. 11 of Tantr. 8 (Appendix 3 in edition: 
Fox and Talking Cave), IV. 3 of Tantr. 8 (Appendix 4 in edition: Potter 
as Warrior), and perhaps III. 11 (Old Hansa). None of these are found in 
Tantrakhyayika «; but this does not prove them late, since « omitted also 
the original story of the Old Man, Young Wife and Thief (8 ILI. 6, edition 
Appendix 2). The first two are found. in the same place in the Jain versions, 
the last in Pirnabhadra in a different place. None of the three occur in 
any other version except (the last two) in Ksemendra.—It is very possible 
that the “ Ur-Tantrakhyadyika” contained still other secondary stories; the 


lack of any particular story in either our Tantrakhyayika or one or both 
Jain versions may be due to omission. 


Sources of Purnabhadra a7 


indicated by the fact that each preserves features of the original 
which the other lacks. This might, to be sure, be explained 
by the hypothesis that one or the other is a contaminated 
version, like Ptrnabhadra. That is just what Hertel does 
assume in his “ genealogical table” of Paiicatantra versions; 
namely, he regards Simplicior as a contamination of Tantra- 
khyayika with another recension. I see no basis for this opinion 
and consider it most improbable. Hertel has, in fact, made 
no attempt to prove it, so far as I have been able to dis- 
cover. 

Pirnabhadra’s other source or sources.—But Putrnabhadra 
seems to have used still other Pancatantra versions, or at least 
one other, not closely related to either Tantrakhyayika or 
Simplicior. For we find that Pairnabhadra has a number of 
features of the original In common with other versions—the 
Southern Paneatantra, the Pahlavi, or the Brhatkatha versions— 
which are lacking, or are replaced by different features, in 
both Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior. In some such cases we 
even find Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior agreeing in a secon- 
dary trait, against Ptrnabhadra and other versions. We may 
assume in such cases that Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior found 
these secondary alterations in their common archetype, the 
“Ur-Tantrakhyayika.” If so, apparently Ptrnabhadra must 
have derived his more original readings from a different source. 
What was that source, or were there several such? We can 
only vaguely guess. There seems to be no sufficient reason to 
suppose that Pirnabhadra used any of the other versions which 
we now possess, such as the Southern Panteatantra or the 
Brhatkatha versions; nor their immediate archetypes, such as 
the Sanskrit original of the Pahlavi. For his occasional agree- 
ments with them are not favorable to such an assumption. 
They are usually features which seem to have pertained to 
the original Pancatantra. In a few cases they may be merely 
due to some accident (e. g. the occasional independent insertion 
of a stanza familiar to different redactors as a “ gefliigeltes 
Wort,” or a similar twist which happens to have been given 
independently to a prose passage). When one text has used 
another, or when both go back to a secondary archetype, it 
is usually quite easy to detect the fact, from unmistakable 


38 Chapter II: The materials 


evidence. (Cf. p. 49 ff.) Such evidence consists in extensive and 
markt agreements in secondary matters, that is in features 
which clearly depart from the original Paneatantra. Evidence 
of this kind exists to establish the interdependence of Tantra- 
khyayika, Simplicior, and Ptrnabhadra, and of the Southern 
Paficatantra, Nepalese Pancatantra, and Hitopadesa; and the 
dependence of Ksemendra on Tantrakhyayika. We do not find 
evidence of such relations between Pirnabhadra and any known 
version except Simplicior and Tantrakhyayika. We must there- 
fore provisionally assume that Ptrnabhadra had no closer 
relations to any other known version. But since he shows a 
number of original features at points where Tantrakhyayika 
and Simplicior agree on unoriginal ones, it seems to follow 
that he probably used some independent offshoot of the original 
which is inaccessible to us. He may even have used more than 
one such, for aught we can tell. But it seems not humanly 
probable that he used many more than the three versions 
which we have now assumed as his sources,—simply because 
to do so would have given him more trouble than a Hindu 
redactor is likely to have taken. 

Value of Pirnabhadra for the reconstruction.—While Putrna- 
bhadra was, therefore, a contaminated version, this does not 
mean that his text cannot be used for the reconstruction. On 
the contrary, it is extremely useful. To be sure, we need to 
remember his dependence on Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior, 
which means that agreements between these texts prove nothing 
for the original. On the other hand, however, we have seen 
that there is reason to believe that he used not our Simplicior, 
but an older ‘‘ Ur-Simplicior; ’’ so that we can improve on our 
text of Simplicior by reference to Pirnabhadra. The same seems 
to be true, only in a less degree, of his relations to Tantra- 
khyayika; the Tantrakhyayika text which he used was at 
least better than our Tantrakhyayika manuscripts in many 
details, so that Hertel occasionally emends Tantrakhyayika’s 
text on the basis of Parnabhadra’s readings (and might with 
profit have done so more frequently, I think). But it is when 
Pirnabhadra agrees with other versions against Tantrakhyayika 
and Simplicior that his value is greatest. For in such cases 
the general presumption is that he has used his third, to us 


Ptrnabhadra’s value for reconstruction ag 
unknown, source; and that such agreements establish the text 
of the original Pancatantra. 

Extent to which Pirnabhadra preserves the original text.—I 
estimate that Ptirnabhadra preserves—from one source or an- 
other—at least the general sense of not far from ninety per- 
cent of the prose text of the original, and seventy percent of 
the verses. The reason for the much poorer preservation of 
the verses is that Ptrnabhadra follows Simplicior to such a 
considerable extent; Simplicior, as we have seen, preserves 
only a minority of the original verses. The exact language of 
the original is preserved in Ptrnabhadra perhaps more exten- 
sively than in any other version except Tantrakhyayika; but 
this is largely due to the fact that Ptirnabhadra follows Tantra- 
khyayika so extensively. However, it should be remembered 
that even in sections where Ptrnabhadra appears to depend 
on Tantrakhyayika, his text is often superior to our Tantra- 
khyayika manuscripts, presumably because he used a much 
older and more. perfect manuscript than any that we have.— 
Every story of the original is preserved in Ptrnabhadra; and 
all are in the order of the original except Story HI. 1, which 
is transposed to Book IV following Simplicior, and the stories 
of Book V, which are also arranged as in Simplicior. 

Secondary additions in Pirnabhadra.—These are more nume- 
rous and extensive than in any other version used by me. 
They include, to begin with, nearly all the inserted stories 
found in both Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior, and a conside- 
rable number of others that are found in neither of these, his 
two principal sources. They also include very many, and fre- 
quently very long, additions and expansions, both prose and 
verses. Many of these are taken from Ptrnabhadra’s several 
sources; but not a few seem to be original with him. Purna- 
bhadra’s text is not only synthetic but rationalizing. His aim 
is to improve on his sources. When he notes a feature which 
he thinks needs improvement, his general tendency is not to 
leave it out, but to add something which will satisfy his sense 
of what is fitting. An interesting instance is the way he handles 
Tantrakhyayika’s allusion to the tale of the ‘ Butter-blind 


Brahman;” see page 177. 


40 Chapter II: The materials 


Tue PAHLAVI AND Irs DESCENDANTS 


The Pahlavi translation (abbreviated Pa).—A Persian phy- 
sician named Burzoe (also spelled Burzuyeh, and in other 
ways), living under the patronage of King Chosrau Andsharwan 
(these names are also variously spelled; his dates are given 
as 531—579 «a. v.), made a translation into Pahlavi of a 
number of Indian stories of various provenance, the chief of 
which was a version of the Pafcatantra. He seems to have 
eiven. to his entire work the name “ Karataka and Damanaka”’ 
(to use the Sanskrit forms of the names), after the two jackals 
who play such an important role in the first book of the Panea- 
tantra. We need not concern ourselves with the parts of the 
work which were drawn from other sources, such as the Maha- 
bharata. It appears that, for some reason or other, Burzoe’s 
translation did not include the Introduction to the Pancatantra. 
Otherwise it included the entire Pancatantra except for three 
stories that seem to have been omitted (II. 4, Deer’s Former 
Captivity; III. 1, Ass in Panther’s Skin; and V. 2, Barber 
who killed the Monks). It transposed the story of the Three 
Fish (1. 11 of the original), making it the seventh story of 
300k I. It also contained one story not found in the original, 
namely the Treacherous Bawd (I. 3¢ of the Pahlavi).*? Other- 
wise the Pancatantra is preserved in a way which shows that 
the Sanskrit text which the translator used was an extremely 
ancient one (which is indeed indicated by the date of the 
translation), and was very close to the original in most details 
as well as in the general sense of the stories. (I refer to it 
as the ‘‘Ur-Pa.”) It suffered, of* course, in the translation. 
Hertel is very severe on the translator, whom he accuses of 


°° This story appears in Tantrakhyayika a, as IL. 5, in a different place 
from the Pahlavi, and quite differently told. It is undoubtedly a secondary 
interpolation made independently in both places; nevertheless the Pahlayi 
translator may well have found it at the place where he has it in the 
Sanskrit version which he used. This is not disproved by Hertel’s argument 
ZDMG. 69, 116f.; for the Sanskrit catch-verse to Story I. 3 may easily have 
been so rewritten as to include a reference to this as well as to the other 
“ selbstverschuldete Unfiille ”. The secondary character of the story is proved 


not by this, but by the faet that all Sanskrit versions agree in not having 
the story at this point. 


The Pahlavi 4] 


rank ignorance of Sanskrit. We must remember, however, 
that we do not possess the Pahlavi itself, but only secondary 
and tertiary offshoots. It is true that they present the original 
text often in a very distorted form. But it is certain that 
many of the distortions are due to later retranslators. This 
can be seen by comparing the Old Syriac with the Arabic 
and its descendants; frequently one or the other comes quite 
close to the original Sanskrit while its rivals are very remote 
and secondary. If we had even the original Pahlavi, not to 
mention the Sanskrit on which it was based, I think we should 
probably have a closer approach to the original Paicatantra 
than we now possess (allowing, of course, for the change of 
language). Only the order, especially of the verses, and to 
some extent of the prose sentences and paragraphs of the ori- 
ginal, seems to have become confused even in the Pahlavi 
(tho in this respect too its descendants have made the con- 
fusion considerably greater). It may be added that the same 
is true of every Sanskrit version we have, tho usually not to 
a like degree; and that therefore there is no reason to doubt 
that at least a part of this confusion in order goes back to 
Ur-Pa, the Sanskrit archetype of the Pahlavi. 


Immediate offshoots of the Pahlavi.— Unhappily the Pahlavi 
translation is lost, along with its Sanskrit original. We have 
to rely for our knowledge of this extremely important stream 
of Pancatantra tradition on its offshoots. Probably the most 
important of these is the Old Syriac (abbreviated Sy), made 
by a certain Bud, apparently about 570 a. v.24 Tho known 


31 First edited and translated by G. Bickell, with an introduction by 
Theodor Benfey (Leipzig, 1876). This translation was a very creditable work 
in its day, and occasionally is useful even now as a check on the following, 
which has in general superseded it: Kalila und Dimna. Syrisch und Deutsch. 
Von Friedrich Schulthess. Berlin, 1911. The translation of Schulthess has 
valuable critical and comparative notes, with additions, by Hertel, and with 
marginal references to the Tantrakhyayika (and occasionally other Sanskrit 
versions) added by the same scholar. It is thus made convenient for refer- 
ring to the Sanskrit. Unfortunately Schulthess has been too much influenst, 
occasionally, by the impression derived from Hertel, that the Tantrakhyayika 
is the original Paiicatantra. An instance in which this impression has led 
him into a false emendation of his text, as it seems to me, is shown in his 
handling of vs 72 of Kapitel 6 (our reconstruction III vs 99); see my Critical 


42 Chapter II: The materials 


only from copies of a single corrupt and fragmentary manu- 
script, it contains nearly the whole of the Pancatantra text 
as found in the Pahlavi (there are only two or three lacunae 
of consequence, due to defects in the unique manuscript). 
The Pahlavi was also translated into Arabic by ‘Abdallah 
ibn al-Mogaffa® about 750 a. p., under the title ‘‘ Kalilah and 
Dimnah.” According to information kindly furnisht me by 
Professor M. Sprengling of the University of Chicago, we 
learn from Arabic tradition that at least one—possibly several . 
—other translations of the Pahlavi into Arabic were made; 
these are not recorded in Hertel’s Paitcatantra.** The work 
became very popular in Arabic literature and there are now 
in existence numerous manuscripts and a number of printed 
texts of it. These differ very widely from one another. Kqually 
wide differences are found in the numerous translations and 
retranslations from the Arabic to which reference will be made 
presently. It is not yet known to what extent these differences 
are due to editing or to secondary changes in Abdallah’s text 
and in translations thereof, and to what extent they may be 
due to the influence of different translations from the Pahlavi. 
It is presumed that most of the Arabic manuscripts and editions, 
and the translations therefrom, represent on the whole various 
revisions of Abdallah’s work. For our purposes this difficult 
problem is of little importance. For we can be certain that 
all Arabic texts and offshoots, in so far as they contain matter 
that represents the original Patcatantra, obtained that matter 
directly or indirectly from the Pahlavi translation; and it 
makes little difference to us whether they derived it from 
Abdallah’s translation or from some other Arabie rendering 
of the Pahlavi. I use the term “Arabic” to denote collectively 
all Arabic texts and descendants so far as they are accessible 


Apparatus on this verse. Here Bickell seems to me to have been nearer 
the truth. And this in not an isolated instance. 

°° Professor Sprengling refers for his authority to Hadji Khalfa’s Bibdlio- 
graphical Dictionary under “ Calila et Dimna,”’ and to an-Nadim’s Fihrist, 
p- 305, 1. 14f. Hadji Khalfa names as a second translator of the work from 
Pahlavi into Arabic “Abdallah ibn Hilal [elsewhere called ibn “Ali] al-Ahw4zi, 
and dates his work a.H. 165 =a. pv. 781/2. Little is known of this man, 
and his alleged work is not definitely known to exist now. 


The Arabic and its offshoots 43 


to me (see below), without meaning to imply any theory as 
to their relation to Abdallah’s translation or any others. Under- 
stood in this sense, the Arabic is a more complete represen- 
tative of the Pahlavi than the Old Syriac. Nevertheless, the 
Old Syriac contains some details which are omitted in all 
texts and translations derived from the Arabic that are known 
to me.%® 

Offshoots of the Pahlavi thru the Arabic.—The Old Syriac 
version of the Pahlavi has left no known descendants. But 
Arabic versions were translated and retranslated repeatedly 
in very early times. In default of a critical edition and trans- 
lation of any Arabic version itself, these early offshoots are 
of great importance in establishing the sense of the Pahlavi. 
I shall make no attempt to enumerate them; they are fully 
described in the eleventh chapter of Hertel’s Pancatantra. Here 
I shall mention only a few of the more important ones, chiefly 
such as I have used in the work of reconstruction. 

Perhaps the oldest is a second Syriac version made in the 
tenth or eleventh century, which has been made accessible in 
an English translation by Keith-Faleoner (Kalilah and Dimnah 
or the Fables of Bidpai, Cambridge, 1885). In the eleventh 
century a Greek version entitled Xteqavitns nat “Iyvqkdtns was 
made by one Symeon Seth; from it were made Latin, German, 
and Slavonic versions. In the twelfth century one Nasrallah 
translated the Arabic into Persian; his work served as a basis 
for a later and better-known Persian version, the Anwari 
Suhaili (called in English ‘ Lights of Canopus’’), which has 


33 The first edition of any Arabic text was that by Sylvestre de Sacy, 
Calila et Dimna ou fables de Bidpai, Paris, 1816. This is said to be a com- 
posite and imperfect text, containing a contamination of several subrecensions. 
It has been translated into English (Knatchbull, Oxford, 1819; reprinted at 
Cairo, 1905; a very loose and poor rendering), German (Wolff, Stuttgart, 
1837; 2nd ed. 1839; a good rendering; also Holmboe and Hansen, Christiania, 
1832), French, Danish, and Russian. It is said by Arabists that the best 
text yet printed is that of L. Cheikho (Beyrouth, 1905), which is based on 
a single old manuscript; but this text is also imperfect, and needs to be 
supplemented by others. Another well-known edition is that of Khalil al- 
Jazidji, which is not rated highly by Arabic scholars. A critical edition of 
the Arabic, based on a thoro study of all available materials, is now being 
undertaken by Professor Sprengling of the University of Chicago. 


44 Chapter II: The materials 


been repeatedly translated into many languages of Kurope and 
Asia (English by Eastwick, Hertford 1854, and by Wollaston, 
1877, 2nd ed. 1894). The Arabic was rendered into Spanish 
by an unknown author about 1251; this is a very valuable 
version,*4 which rests on an Arabic text closely related to 
that used by Rabbi Joel in his Hebrew rendering. This latter 
was composed in the twelfth century, and has been edited 
with a French translation by J. Derenbourg, Paris 1881; Bibl. 
de l’éc. des hautes ét. 49 (this volume also contains an edition, 
by Derenbourg, but no translation, of a later Hebrew trans- 
lation from the Arabic, made by Jacob ben Eleazer in the 
thirteenth century). Our text of Joel is unhappily fragmentary ; 
the entire first book is lost. We have however the complete 
text of a Latin rendering of Joel, made by John of Capua 
between 1263 and 1278, which was printed twice about 1480 
and exists also in manuscripts of about the same age. One 
of the early printed texts has been reprinted with valuable 
notes by J. Derenbourg (Bibl. de l’éc. des hautes ét. 72, Paris, 
1887). The Latin of John of Capua became famous in the. 
Middle Ages, and was rendered into’ Spanish, into German 
(Buch der Beispiele der alten Weisen, by Anthonius von Pfor 
or Pforr, publisht about 1480; an extremely popular work 
in medieval Kurope), and into Italian (by one Doni, printed 
1552). This Italian version was the basis of the earliest Kng- 
lish descendant of the Pafcatantra, by Sir Thomas North 
(The Morall Philosophie of Doni, London, 1570; reprinted 
1601; and lately reprinted again by Joseph Jacobs, London, 
1888). 

Use made of the Pahlavi versions in the present work.—Gene- 
rally speaking a clear agreement in sense between any des- 
cendant of the Pahlavi and any of the Sanskrit versions raises 
a strong presumption that we are dealing with a feature of the 
original Pancatantra, since there is no evidence of any secondary 


54 Hertel mentions only the edition of Clifford G. Allen, Macon (France), 
1906. According to Solalinde an earlier edition by Gayangos appeared at 
Madrid in 1860, The edition used by me is that of Antonio G. Solalinde: 
Calila y Dimna Fédbulas, Antigua version Castellana, Madrid, 1917; it is 
based, according to the editor, primarily on the editions of Allen and of 
Alemany (Madrid, 1915). 


Use of the Pahlavi in this work 45 


agreements between the Pahlavi and any Sanskrit version.*® The 
number of purely accidental coincidences must in the nature of 
things be limited. In default of the Pahlavi text, the ideal desi- 
deratum for use in such comparisons would be careful colla- 
tions of both the Old Syriac and the Arabic texts. Schulthess’s 
edition of the Old Syriac, supplemented by his notes and by 
Bickell’s edition, gives us all the material that can be hoped 
for on that subject. Unfortunately we are not so well off as 
to the Arabic. Of course no single Arabic version can be used 
alone. However, my friend and former associate, Dr. W. N. 
Brown, has prepared a rendering of Books II and IV of the 
Pancatantra in their Arabic guise which I believe approaches 
our requirements. It is primarily a rendering of Cheikho’s text 
(see page 43, note 33), but with indications in the notes of all 
possibly important variants in certain other Arabic editions 
(especially Khalil’s) and in the principal offshoots of the Arabic. 
It thus contains, we may be fairly sure, all evidence for the 
reconstruction which could probably be extracted from any 
of the known Arabic texts and descendants thereof. Brown’s 
rendering of the Arabie for Pafic. Book II has appeared in 
JAOS. 42. 215—250. His Book IV is not yet publisht, but he 
has kindly allowed me to use it and quote from it in manu- 
script. For the other three books (Pancatantra I, III, and V) 
I have been forced to rely almost exclusively on older and 
less scientific translations, since my knowledge of Arabic is 
not sufficient to make possible an independent use of Arabic 
editions. I have relied principally on the Old Spanish (ed. 
Solalinde), the Younger Syriac as translated by Keith-Falconer, 
the Latin of John of Capua and its original, Joel’s Hebrew 
(so far as extant), and Wolff's German translation (2nd ed.) 
of the Arabie as edited by De Sacy. Occasionally I have used 
Symeon Seth’s Greek (which is less valuable for comparative 
purposes because much freer than the versions named above), 
and the Anwari Suhaili in Kastwick’s English translation. 
Extent to which the Pahlavi preserves the original text.—In 
estimating the value of the Pahlavi’s evidence as to the original 


35 See Chapter V for Hertel’s attempts to prove such, and my reasons for 
disagreeing with him. Cf. also page 49 ff. on general methods of fixing the 
original. 


46 Chapter II: The materials 


text, we must bear in mind the allowances that have to be 
made for translation and retranslation and re-retranslation. From 
the Pahlavi versions alone we cannot often hope to infer the 
precise language of the original Sanskrit. The most we can 
hope, in general, is that they will show us that something 
approximately similar to a particular verse or prose sentence 
was contained in their Sanskrit archetype. They show us that, 
to an extent which we must acknowledge with deep gratitude. 
I find evidence that at least some parts of fully eighty percent 
of the original prose sentences, and that more than seventy 
percent of the original verses, were found in the Pahlavi. (The 
percentages in either the Syriac or the Arabie alone would be 
somewhat lower; they would be lower in the Syriac than in 
the Arabic.) The reason for the smaller percentage of verses 
preserved is doubtless in part the greater difficulty of the 
language of the Sanskrit verses, which made successful trans- 
lation harder; and in part the fact that the sententious verses 
could more easily drop out without leaving an appreciable 
gap. The accuracy and completeness of the translation varies 
greatly in different parts of the work, as well as in the different 
versions. Often it is so close that it could pass for an almost 
word-for-word rendering of the original Sanskrit, as indicated 
by the extant Sanskrit versions. On the whole I can say that 
I am honestly surprised at the frequency of such cases, in one 
Pahlavi version or another. 

I have already mentioned the fact that the Pahlavi omits 
only three emboxt stories of the original, besides the Intro- 
duction. All other stories are preserved in both Old Syriac and 
Arabic, except that a defect in the manuscript of the Syriac 
leaves us, quite accidentally, without its version of Story |. 2 
(Jackal and Drum). 

Secondary additions in the Pahlavii—These are few in the 
sections paralleling the Pafcatantra. In this respect the Pahlavi 
rivals the Southern Paficatantra as a faithful reflex of the ori- 
ginal, and far surpasses Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions. 
It is distinctly surpast only by Somadeva. We have seen that 
it includes only one unoriginal story (I. 3¢, Treacherous Bawd). 
It includes also a small number of verses (that is, of passages 
which obviously represent sententious verses of the Sanskrit; - 


Secondary additions in Pahlavi AT 


for the Pahlavi renderings are of course in prose) which at 
least appear in no Sanskrit version, and most of which were 
therefore probably not in the original Paiicatantra. It doubtless 
contained likewise a number of prose insertions and expansions. 
But it is harder to judge of this point, because most of the 
existing Pahlavi versions show a strong tendency to expand 
on their own account. Expansions common to the Old Syriae 
and the Arabie are not very numerous; and it is only these 
which we can with confidence attribute to the Pahlavi. 


48 


‘}IIYSUVY ULY} SoSeNSULT IOY}O OJUL SUOT}YISULIY OYVOIPUT so27MIT ‘sUOTSIOA [vOTJOYJOdAY soyVoIpPUT » 





vapeyqeting 
BAIPUSUIOS FY 
VIJUBJVOUR 
esopedoyipy = asayedon 
vyARAYYVAUL J, 
oprwhy BljUR}eoUR 
DIG PIO ULIYINOG Lorry du4ig BAOPVULOG 
| | Sa 
OMT els ¢ N-“{) {dg-19 » 
sa | | DYWWYWWY LT 
CI-11) » ds-I1)» LN» WLI PSONY JLON se 





| 
| 


BIJULVOIUV-IN x. 


SNOISHHA VULINVIVHONVd YHCTIO AO SNOLLVIHYYALNI ONIMOHS 
Sere yr | 


CHAPTER III 
METHODS EMPLOYED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION 


Purpose of this. chapter.—In this chapter I shall present a 
statement of the methods which I have workt out for estab- 
lishing the text of the original Pantcatantra, positively and 
negatively, together with a brief statement of the reasons 
why we may be confident that there really was an original 
Pancatantra,—that we are not chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. De- 
tailed illustrations will be furnisht in later chapters. Since 
nothing can be decided finally about the original until we 
are sure what versions are secondarily interrelated, I shall 
first take up the methods by which we may hope to decide 
that question. 

Three ways of proving secondary interrelationship.—By ‘‘se- 
condary interrelationship ’ between two versions, I mean de- 
scent, in whole or in part, from a common archetype later than 
the original Paitcatantra, and secondary in comparison with it. 
There are not more than three ways in which such descent 
can be proved, in my opinion; and of these I regard only 
the first two as entirely conclusive. A combination of the 
first two is desirable; and it is indeed a fact that these two 
generally go together, more or less, tho either may be in 
individual instances more important than the other. The three 
methods are: | 

1. Proof that the versions in question agree in showing a 
not inconsiderable number of important and striking features 
which cannot reasonably be supposed to have belonged to 
the original Pancatantra, nor to have been added indepen- 
dently in the same place in the several versions where they 
occur. Secondarily inserted stories are the best, and almost the 
only conclusive, sort of evidence that can be considered under 


this head. For in the case of a stanza, or a minor motive or 
Edgerton, Paiicatantra. II. 4 


50 Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


feature in a story, appearing in several versions, it is easier 
as a rule to suppose either that it belonged to the original, 
or that it was added independently in more than one version. 
It is much harder to suppose that two redactors should, by 
mere chance and independently of each other, have added the 
same story at the same place in the text, unless indeed the 
original text contained a definite reference to the story in 
question. In actual fact no such case occurs in the Pafcatantra. 
There is no instance, in my opinion, of the insertion of a se- 
condary story at the same place (this qualification is important) 
in independent versions. At the same time it is usually easy 
to find grounds for doubting the originality of stories that 
have been secondarily inserted.—By this method I think it is 
possible to prove the interrelationship of e. g. Tantrakhyayika 
and the Jain versions, and of Tantrakhyayika and Ksemendra, 
which have a number of secondary stories in common, occur- 
ring at the same points in the text. 

2. Proof of constant and far-reaching agreements in minor 
verbal details between the versions in question. Such agree- 
ments, to prove the point, must be so regular as to be over- 
whelming in their foree, and must include a goodly number 
of passages in which comparison with other versions warrants 
us in assuming that they do not go back to the original Pafiea- 
tantra.—By this method I think we can prove the secondary 
connections of, e. g., the Southern Paiicatantra, Nepalese Paiea- 
tantra, and Hitopadega; also of Tantrakhyayika and Pirna- 
bhadra. 

3. Less reliable is the third method of proof, namely, proof 
that the versions in question are parts of some larger whole, 
and that said larger whole is of common origin. This is the 
case, among the versions used by me, only with the Pahlavi 
and the Brhatkatha versions. As pointed out above, the Old 
Syriac and the Arabie versions are offshoots of the Pahlavi, 
which included not only a translation of a Paiicatantra version 
but a considerable amount of other material. Since the Old 
Syriac and the Arabic agree in presenting this other material, 
which is not found connected with the Paiicatantra in any 
other version, we should perhaps be justified on this ground 
alone in assuming that the Pafeatantra versions found in them 





Ways of proving secondary interrelationship 51 


are closely and secondarily connected. Of course, the same 
can be proved by both of the other methods mentioned above. 
The ease is different with the Brhatkatha versions, Somadeva 
and Ksemendra. Here this third method is the only way by 
which we can prove their interrelationship. It seems clear that 
the Kathasaritsagara of Somadeva and the Brhatkathamajdjari 
of Ksemendra both go back as a whole to a common original 
(see Lacéte’s work cited on page 23, note 14). Therefore it 
seems fair, a priort, to assume that materials common to both 
works were probably drawn, at least primarily, from that 
source (in spite of the fact that Ksemendra evidently used 
also another Pafcatantra version, see page 25). But for this 
fact, however, it seems to me that there would be no sufficient 
reason to assume such relations between the Pafcatantra sec- 
tions of Somadeva and Ksemendra. On the one hand, they 
contain no secondary stories. in common (indeed, Somadeva 
contains no secondary stories at all). And on the other hand, 
they do not strikingly agree in verbal details. It may be assumed 
that this is due to the facts that both of them are drastically 
abbreviated, and that both have cast their materials in poetic 
guise. In spite of these facts, however, both of them have 
managed to retain many verbal correspondences from the ori- 
ginal; and it is curious that even in these inherited traits they 
seldom agree closely with each other; rather, each preserves 
at different times different original features. The only striking 
agreements between Somadeva and Ksemendra are their com- 
mon omission of the Introduction and of Story I. 3. But common 
omissions constitute merely negative agreements and prove no- 
thing as to ultimate relationship; it is easy to suppose that they 
occurred independently. For these reasons, | retain a lingering 
suspicion that after all Somadeva and Ksemendra may not 
impossibly have got their Paficatantra versions from different 
sourees. That is, I think it is at present impossible to prove 
absolutely that they got these sections from the same common 
source from which they undoubtedly got most of the other 
materials in their works; tho the presumption remains that 
they did. Nothing is shown by the position occupied in the 
Kathasaritsagara and the Brhatkathamanjari by the Pancatantra 


sections of each; for both Somadeva and Ksemendra rearranged 
4* 


52 Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


their materials so extensively that there is little correspondence 
in the order of the major sections or books of their respective 
works. (This is, however, not true of the internal order of the 
Paneatantra sections of the two works, which in both cases 
follow strictly the order of the original Pancatantra.) 


Versions which are not secondarily interrelated.—Unless ver- 
sions can be shown by one of these three methods, and pre- 
ferably by the first two combined, to be related, I believe that 
it is safe to consider them independent offshoots of the original 
Paicatantra. By applying these tests, I think that it is possible 
to establish four independent streams of Paicatantra tradition. 
These are: 

1. Tantrakhyayika, Simplicior, and Pirnabhadra. To this 
group belongs also Ksemendra in part, since it apparently used 
Tantrakhyayika. On the other hand, Ptrnabhadra made partial 
use of at least one different stream, not secondarily related to 
any of the others; so that we have traces of at least a fifth 
stream, which however nowhere appears in a pure and un- 
contaminated form in the texts which we have. 


2, Southern Pancatantra, Nepalese Panecatantra, and Hito- 
padesa. 


3. The Brhatkatha versions, namely Somadeva and Ksemendra. 
But only Somadeva is a pure representative of this stream; 
Ksemendra is contaminated from Tantrakhyayika. Therefore 
Ksemendra is significant when agreeing with 2 and 4, but not 
with 1. 

4. The Pahlavi versions. 


How to determine original matter?—My readers will by this 
time be asking, how can one tell whether a given feature— 
especially one occurring in more than one of the older versions— 
belongs to the original or not? Or how ean one gauge varying 
degrees of probability in this respect? I have workt out a 
method for this operation, which is doubtless not infallible, but 
which in my opinion yields results that are as sure as our 
materials permit, and sure enuf to justify their publication. It 
is not easy to make it clear in a few words; I shall develop 
it as succinctly as possible in the following pages. Illustrations 
of its workings in detail will be furnisht later, 


All versions point to one archetype 53 


All versions point to a definite literary archetype.—In the first 
place the question might be raised (altho, so far as I know, 
it has not been responsibly raised in print), whether there ever 
was any ‘original Pancatantra,’”’ in the sense of a single defi- 
nite composition from which all the versions descended. It might 
be suggested that we are dealing simply with a nebulous mass 
of popular fables and stories, with its edges never clearly de- 
fined; a treasure-store upon which various literary redactors 
drew, each taking portions, and thus forming, as it were, various 
overlapping tho not identical Pancatantra “ schools.’’! Nothing 
is more certain, to my mind, than the impossibility of such a 
view. A glance at the table showing the conspectus of stories 
of the original, Chapter VIII, is perhaps enuf to show this. From 
that table it appears that, disregarding the Hitopadesa (which 
is only partly based on the Paneatantra and has extensively 
rearranged the stories), all the versions agree in showing nearly 
all the stories which I take to be original; and, what is much 
more important, they have them itn the same order, almost 
without exception. The frame stories of the five books are the 
same except that the Jain versions use a different story as the 


1 The Vedic schools have been suggested to me orally as a possible analogy, 
by a scholar whose judgment I value highly. But this analogy seems to me 
a very poor one. The Vedic schools grew up around the ritual; all the 
literary collections of the Veda owe their origin, form, and content to the 
Vedic ritual. The words spoken at this ritual were originally a quite ancillary 
matter, and naturally, therefore, a nebulous and indefinite one. The words 
actually varied constantly from time to time and from place to place, and 
their various forms bore only a vague and indefinite relation to each other. 
Out of that nebulous mass, as the thing gradually began to get crystallized, 
naturally there developt quite a number of more or less variant forms of 
the spoken ritual, which resembled each other only to an extent comparable 
to that to which the various temporal and local forms of the pragmatic 
ritual resembled each other.. That is, there was a profound general similarity ; 
after all, the ritual was essentially the same all over; but there was an in- 
definite number of minor variations, each of which, generally speaking, had 
as good a right to be called “ original” as perhaps any other—But until 
some reason can be shown for such a process of development in the case 
of the Paitcatantra, it seems to me we can hardly pass from one to the other 
as if the cases were analogous. That they certainly are not, it seems to me. 
What ritual, or other outside consideration, could possibly have been re- 
sponsible for the comparative fixation of the Paficatantra which must surely 
be admitted to be indicated as a condition precedent to all our versions? 


54 Chapter I: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


frame for the fifth book. Of the thirty-two emboxt stories, 
twenty-three are found in all the versions. Of the remaining 
nine, one (LY. 1) is lacking only in the Nepalese verse-text 
(that is, the single verse which it contained was omitted by 
the extractor of the verses); two others (I. 4 and VY. 1) are 
lacking only in Somadeva; one (III. 1) only in Pahlavi; two 
(III. 7 and 10) only in Simplicior; one (I. 3) only in Somadeva 
and Ksemendra; one (Y. 2) only in Somadeva and Pahlavi; 
and the ninth (II. 4) in Somadeva, Pahlavi, and Simpli- 
cior.2 All the stories are found at the same point in the 
text of all recensions (so far as found in them at all), except 
that (1) Pahlavi has placed I. 11 before I. 7; (2) the Jain 
versions have transferred III. 1 to Book IV and rearranged the 
stories of Book V; (8) Simplicior has transferred to Book IV 
some of the other stories of Book III (cf. on this, however, 
page 31f. above). It is hardly plausible to suppose that so many 
redactors should have drawn on a loose stock of fables and, 
by mere accident, have come so close to selecting the same 
fables. But it is next to impossible that, having once selected 
the fables, they should have arranged them all in practically 
the same order,—unless it were possible to show some reason 
in the nature of things, or some external determining cause, 
why precisely this order and no other should have been selected; 
and that seems not to be possible. The fact that some of the 
versions have inserted secondarily quite a number of other 
stories does not detract from the force of this argument. 
Even more compelling, however, is the striking verbal 
agreement between the versions thruout so much of their 
extent. Not only do they all, as a rule, tell the same stories 
in the same way. Their very language is to a considerable 
extent identical; to an extent which would, I think, be 
literally inconceivable except upon the assumption that they 
go back to the single definite literary archetype assumed. Take 
for example the passage, I §§ 34—48 and vss T—23, quoted 
with readings of all versions in Chapter VI below. This passage 
includes fifteen consecutive prose sections and seventeen con- 


* Our ms. of the Old Syriac happens to have a long lacuna where Story 
I. 2 was found; since the story oceurs in the Arabic, this lack need not be 
counted as a real omission. 


. . . . F 
How to determine original material 5D 


secutive verses from the frame-story of Book I. Be it noted 
that the character of this particular passage is most unfavorable 
to its preservation intact. It contains no action whatever, no 
dramatic elements which would arrest the attention or impress 
the memory. Yet I think one who reads the variants of the 
several versions can hardly help agreeing, not only that they 
all, except Somadeva and Ksemendra, have preserved the 
sense of nearly all of it; but also that the extent of their 
verbal coincidences is such as would be quite inconceivable 
unless we assume that they all copied from texts which ulti- 
mately went back to one definite literary archetype. Even 
Somadeva and Ksemendra show some traces of it (cf. for instance 
Somadeva on I vs 9); in the dramatic portions, where a story 
is being told, they are much closer to the rest. It is true that 
the verbal correspondences found in this particular passage 
are more perfect than is often the case for such a considerable 
stretch of the text. But on the other hand, the correspondences 
in general sense, at least, are often, and especially in the 
dramatic and narrative portions, even more complete; that is, 
there are fewer omissions in some of the versions. Enuf said: 
we cannot but assume the actuality of our goal, the original 
Paneatantra. This being admitted, the question remains how 
to reach that goal? 

1. Features common to all versions must be original.—It 
seems that we have the right to assume, as a starting-point, 
that such features as are common to all the versions considered 
in this work—which includes all the older versions—and occur 
at the same point, belong to the original. Otherwise, we 
should have to assume either a chance coincidence (surely 
scarcély possible in so many versions), or that all of them go 
back to a secondary archetype more recent than the original 
Paneatantra. There is, in my opinion, no reason whatever to 
make such an assumption. (See below, Chapter V, for my reasons 
for not accepting an assumption of this sort made by Hertel.) 
At any rate, we can only treat the common original of all 
existing versions as, for practical purposes, the original Panea- 
tantra. We can hardly hope to get at one that is more original. 

2. Omission of features in Hitopadesa and the Brhatkatha 
versions not significant.—Secondly, the omission in certain 


D6 Chapter UI: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


versions of features common to all the other versions does not 
seriously diminish the virtual certainty that these features are 
original. For instance, it is obvious on the face of it that the 
Hitopadega has rearranged its Pancatantra materials so com- 
pletely that the omission, in it, of a particular story or other 
feature cannot even tend to make us doubt the originality of 
that story or feature, if it is found in all the others. In the 
case of the Brhatkatha versions, Somadeva and Ksemendra, we 
must be more cautious; but something of the same sort is 
true of them. They preserve, to be sure, most of the stories, 
and follow the general drift of the text. But it is obvious, so 
obvious that anyone who knows them cannot help regarding 
it as axiomatic, that they have abbreviated the text most 
drastically. Particularly in the non-narrative portions, such as 
the sample referred to above and quoted in Chapter VI 
below (1 §§ 34—48 and vss 7—23), they are extremely scanty. 
Therefore, if we fail to find a trace of an individual sentence 
or verse in Somadeva or Ksemendra, or both, it is evident 
that this is no reason for serious suspicion that it is unoriginal. 
If it is found in Tantrakhyayika, Southern Pancatantra, the 
Jain versions, and Pahlavi, and (if a verse) in the Nepalese 
Pancatantra, all in the same position, it would be a hardened 
sceptic indeed who would refuse to believe in its originality. 
Chance could surely not account for the independent insertion, 
at the same place, of many identical features in so many 
versions; and I have been unable to find the slightest reason 
for suspecting that all these versions go back to a secondary 
archetype. 

3. Very minor features common to a smaller number of in- 
dependent versions are not necessarily original.— When it comes 
to agreements between a smaller number of versions, we must 
go more slowly. When such agreements concern only small 
details, it often becomes conceivable that they may be the 
result of chance, even tho they occur in two or three independent 
versions, A slight change in the prose narrative may occur to 
more than one redactor at different times. A proverbial stanza, 
known to many people as a “ gefliigeltes Wort,’ may be inserted 
independently at the same point in the narrative, if its meaning 
happens to fit the context. Such stanzas are often current in 


jv 
~l 


Minor correspondences 


several more or less variant forms; a redactor may have 
found a stanza in a certain form in his original, but because 
he happened to be familiar with the same stanza in another 
form, he may have changed it.? A redactor of another, in- 
dependent version may do the same thing; then we have an 
agreement, which however means nothing as to the original. 
The general habits of individual recensions, as well as their 
general interrelationships, must be carefully considered in such 
matters. For instance, the Southern Pancatantra in its most 
original form, the Brhatkatha versions, and the Pahlavi are all 
versions which contain few interpolations or expansions. Hence 
if we find a feature recorded in the Southern Pancatantra, 
Somadeva, or Pahlavi, and also, in the same place, in some 
unrelated version, this raises a strong presumption that the 
feature is original; a stronger presumption than, for instance, 
would be the case with Simplicior or Ptrnabhadra, both of 
which expand freely. Again, if the common feature occurs not 
only in the Southern Paneatantra but also in the Nepalese 
Patcatantra or the Hitopadesa, the presumption becomes still 
stronger; for this indicates that it probably goes back at least 
to the common archetype of those versions, the “ Ur-SP.” 

4. More important features common to several independent 
versions: probability of originality tends to vary with importance 
and closeness of correspondence.—T'he more striking and im- 
portant the feature in question is, the greater is the likelihood 
that agreements between different versions indicate originality— 
always barring the possibility of secondary interrelationship, 
which must be shown by one of the methods outlined above 
(page 49 ff.). Some features (for instances, see Chapter VII) 
may occur in two versions only, and yet it may be more 
reasonable to assume that the others have omitted them, than 
that the two versions inserted them independently. These are 
the two alternatives that are always before us in such a case. 
It is by no means always easy to choose between them. There 
is no rule of thumb, no definite line that can be drawn; we 
ean not define the exact point at which a variation becomes 


% For examples (at least possible ones) of the last two processes, see 
the “unoriginal agreements” cited in Chapter VI. 


58 Chapter Il: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


so important, so peculiar, that it is harder to suppose its in- 
dependent occurrence than its inheritance from the original. 
And, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, no single instance 
can be considered absolutely alone. It must be considered in 
the light of all other similar instances that occur; and in the 
light of the general habits of the versions containing it. 

5. Entire stories common to several independent versions at 
the same place are almost certainly original.— When it comes 
to entire stories occurring at the same place in different ver- 
sions, it seems to me that the case is different, and much 
simpler. Independent insertion of the same story at the same 
place in versions which knew nothing of each other, or of a 
common secondary archetype, seems to me a priori so impro- 
bable that we might almost reject its possibility—unless indeed 
there were in the original text a clear reference to the story 
in question. And if the stories are told in the several versions 
not only at the same point, but also in language that shows 
clear verbal correspondences, then it seems to me that all 
possibility of doubt is liquidated. In that case the versions 
must have taken the story from the same source. And that 
source can only have been a Paicatantra version—whether 
the original, or a secondary archetype. Otherwise—if they drew 
on an outside souree—what human probability is there that 
they would have happened to insert the same story, told in 
the same language (in part at least), at exactly the same point 
in the text? Seldom indeed is the appropriateness of an emboxt 
story to its context so compelling and exclusive that we could 
see any reason why, on the theory of chances, a redactor 
should have inserted that story precisely here, rather than in 
any of numerous other places.t—But if the story in question 





* What happens when the same story is inserted independently in 
different versions can easily be seen from the instances in which it has 
occurred. Namely: (1) The stories are told in very different terms, with a 
markt lack of the verbal correspondences that tend to characterize the 
stories taken from the same archetype; and (2) They are found at widely 
different places. Examples are the stories of the Treacherous Bawd (Pahlavi L. 
3c, Tantrakhyayika « ILI. 5, Southern Paicatantra ¢ I. 23, Nirmala Pathaka’s 
Old Marathi V. 9; see Hertel, ZDMG. 69.115, and Pufic. p. 285); and the 
Blue Jackal (Tantr. I. 8, Ksemendra I. 7, Simplicior I. 10, Pirnabhadra I, 11 
{in all these secondarily related], and Hitopadega III. 6 Pet., III. 7 Mii; 


Correspondences of entire stories 59 


was taken from a secondary archetype, my experience leads 
me to be confident that it would not stand alone. There would 
be many other features in the versions concerned which would 
show the same common origin—whether entire stories inserted, 
or other less important insertions or variations. As I have 
pointed out above (pages 49 ff.), and as I shall illustrate in 
detail below (Chapter IV), such is regularly the case with 
secondarily related versions. Their secondary relations strike 
one so forcibly that it is hardly possible to be in any doubt 
about the matter.® 

While such a@ priori considerations may be allowed weight, 
they have not been solely responsible for the conclusion 
which I have reacht on this point, and of which I feel more 
than usually confident. That conclusion is that stories which 
occur at the same place in more than one independent version 
belong to the original. Specifically, this means that stories 
occurring in the same place in versions belonging to any two 
of the four groups mentioned on page 52 must be original, 
viz. (1) Tantrakhyayika or Simplicior or Ptrnabhadra; (2) 
Southern Paicatantra or Nepalese Pancatantra or Hitopadesa; 
(3) Somadeva (or Ksemendra, except that agreement between 
Ksem. and Tantr. and the Jain versions must be ignored); 
and (4) Pahlavi. There is a strong @ priort presumption that 
smaller agreements between two or more members of these 
different groups also represent the original; but in the case of 
entire stories this presumption amounts to virtual certainty. In 
actual fact, every story which I attribute to the original is 
found at the same place in at least three of these four streams 
of tradition, with two exceptions (II. 4—really only an incident 
in Book II’s frame story, cf. note 21, page 26— only in Tantr., 
SP, Ksem., and Pirn.; and V. 2, only in these same versions 
and Simplicior and Hitopadesa [not in the same place in the 


also in numerous later and secondary versions, Hertel, Pafc., passim).— 
That the latter story occurs in a different place in HitopadeSa is of course 
not significant, since HitopadeSa otherwise transposes the stories. What is 
significant is that the story is utterly different in Hitopadesa; its correspon- 
dence to the others is extremely remote. 

5 Except as to Somadeva and Ksemendra, which are so seriously abbreviated 
that the ordinary tests cannot be applied to them with such success; p. 51. 


60 Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


Jain versions and Hit.])—On the other hand, unoriginal are 
a number of stories found only in Tantr. and the Jain versions, 
or Tantr. and Ksemendra; and one story found only in SP, 
Nepalese, and Hitopadesa. In the case of the stories common 
to Tantr., Jain versions and Ksem., there are internal reasons 
for thinking them spurious in most of the cases (ef. page 74 ff. 
below); and their omission in all streams of tradition except 
one is pretty sure evidence in itself. Especially noteworthy is 
their omission in SP; for SP is remarkably faithful in pre- 
serving -all important details of the original (it compresses, but 
does not omit much), and in particular it has preserved, | 
think, every story of the original, a distinction which it shares 
only with Tantrakhyayika and Ptrnabhadra. 

6. Summary of methods by which originality is determined. 
—What is true with virtual certainty of entire stories is true 
with varying degrees of probability of smaller text units, down 
to individual words. If they occur in more than one of the 
four independent streams of tradition (page 52), the a priori 
presumption is that they are original. The strength of this 
presumption is greatest with larger sections, less with brief 
phrases, and least with single words. The presumption is 
strengthened by lack of any positive agreement among the 
remaining, discordant versions. If we find two alternative and 
irreconcilable agreements, cach supported by two or more 
independent versions, it is evident that we are dealing, in one 
case or the other, with a chance coincidence; for both cannot 
go back to the original. In such cases we can only conjecture, 
with more or less plausibility, what the original had. But 
conflicts of this sort occur, I believe, only in the case of 
individual words, or at most very brief phrases; and even 
these are comparatively rare. 

7. Features occurring only in a single stream of tradition.— 
Agreements between versions which are known to be even 
partially interrelated can never have conclusive foree. For 
instance, an agreement between Tantrakhyayika, Simplicior, 
Purnabhadra, and Ksgemendra never has more force than the 
reading of a single version, because these versions are all to 
some extent interdependent. On the other hand, when the 
disagreements of the other streams of tradition are purely 


Features in only one stream of tradition 61 


negative; that is, when the others simply omit a minor feature 
found in one stream, instead of containing a discordant reading; 
then it is often impossible to be certain that the feature in 
question is unoriginal. For it is often quite conceivable that 
the feature has been omitted independently in the archetypes 
of as many as three streams of tradition. We must remember 
on such oceasions that the “Ur-SP” and the Brhatkatha 
archetypes abbreviate more or less on principle; and that we 
have only secondary and corrupt descendants of the Pahlavi 
archetype. Accordingly, when we find a minor feature well 
attested as belonging to (especially) the Tantrakhyayika-Sim- 
plicior-Ptrnabhadra(-Ksemendra) archetype, and when there 
is no reason a priori to think that the feature is secondary 
(that is, when it is not inconsistent with something which we 
can establish on other grounds as pertaining to the original), 
then it seems to me that there is enuf chance of its being 
original to warrant putting it in the text—but always in paren- 
theses, by which I indicate that the words in question may de 
secondary insertions.—This applies to ‘‘ minor” features prima- 
rily; for the more important and ‘striking a feature is, the less 
likely is it that it would have been omitted in three different 
archetypes, particularly in the Southern Paneatantra, which 
omits little of importance. A fortiori, this principle can hardly 
apply to entire stories at all, in my opinion. So few original 
stories are omitted in any version (none whatever, I believe, 
in the Southern Paneatantra or Tantrakhyayika or Parnabhadra), 
that it would be surprising to find the same story omitted 
independently in three archetypes. But furthermore: the insertion 
of a story is almost sure to result in changes in the surrounding 
material, introducing in the context features which are indicated 
as secondary by the positive agreement of the other versions 
against those intruding features. 

In regard to the moralizing verses which are so abundant 
in the Paneatantra, it is usually very easy either to insert them 
or to omit them without altering the context at all—or at most 
only by adding or omitting an uktamh ca or the like. Con- 
sequently all redactors seem to have done both, either de- 
liberately or accidentally. In general I deal with the verses as 
with the prose, inserting in parentheses those whose originality 


62 Chapter II: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


is not certain, particularly those occurring in Tantrakhyayika 
and the Jain versions but nowhere else. With this exception, 
I make it a rule not to include, even in parentheses, verses 
of which no traces are found in any but a single stream of 
tradition. There is more justification for making an exception 
of agreements between antr. and the Jain versions in the 
case of verses than in the case of prose. For the Brhatkatha 
versions omit almost all the verses; hence the omission of 
verses in them means little. And both Pahlavi and ‘“ Ur-SP” 
reproduce the verses less perfectly than the prose. 

I freely admit that it is not only theoretically possible, but 
even likely, that I have by this method omitted a few stanzas 
which belonged to the original, but were lost in all versions 
except, say, Pahlavi, or the Ur-SP. I can only say in defense 
that it seems to me that I have come much closer to the 
original as a whole by this method than by any other which 
could have been adopted; say, by including all the verses 
found only in Ur-SP. Verses found only in the Pahlavi could 
not, of course, be included without guessing at the Sanskrit 
originals. 

As to prose features, I think there is every reason to believe 
that the general sense of practically everything found in the 
original is included in my reconstruction, if not as a part of 
the certain text, then at least in parentheses as a possible but 
uncertain element in the original. 

Our methods are verified inductively and pragmatically, and are 
not based on mere abstract considerations.—These conclusions, 
I say, are not based wholly, nor even primarily, on the a prior? 
considerations advanst above. They have been workt ovt slowly 
and painfully, from a study of all the materials. I have care- 
fully tested all the other possibilities that I have been able 
to conceive; for I am well aware of the ease with which one 
may deceive himself by theoretical reasoning. I can honestly 
say that no other theory seems to me possible, in the light of 
all the evidence. I hope and believe that anyone who open- 
mindedly studies my text and Critical Apparatus will agree 
with me. For those who have not the time or inclination to 
do this, [ offer below (Chapters VI and VII) some examples 
which illustrate my conclusions. It must be remembered, however, 


Methods verified inductively 63 


that any such selection must in the nature of things be regarded 
as illustrative, rather than as final proof. To prove the point 
definitely the whole must be considered.® 


° Winternitz, DLZ. 31 (1910), 2760, was guided by very good instinct 
when he said: “ Jedenfalls scheint mir die Ubereinstimmung zwischen zwei 
oder mehreren der alten Rezensionen das stiirkste Indizium fiir den Zustand 
des Grundwerkes zu sein.’”” He has in mind here entire stories; but the 
same could be said of smaller text-units. Only instead of “der alten Re- 
zensionen” he might better have said ‘‘ der gegvenseitig unabhiingigen Re- 
zensionen ’—which is doubtless what he really had in mind; this would 
answer Hertel’s question in reply, ZDMG. 69. 118, “ warum nur alten? Und 
wo ist die Grenze zwischen alt und jung?” (Cf. below, p. 67, note 7.) The 
qualification that such correspondences, to be compelling, must be found 
at the same place in the several versions, was clearly in Winternitz’s mind, 
as is indicated by his following sentences. He was, to be sure, unfortunate 
in one of the instances he quoted; the story of the Treacherous Bawd is 
not found at the same place in Pahlavi and Tantrakhyadyika «a, as of course 
Hertel was not slow to point out in his reply. But Winternitz was absolutely 
right in asserting, against Hertel, the originality of the story of the Old 
Man, Young Wife, and Thief (Reconstruction III. 6). This story occurs in 
all the versions except the « recension of Tantrakhyayika and the Hito- 
padesa,—and in the same place in all except Simplicior, which transposes 
it to the fourth book along with several other stories of the original 
Book III. Hertel’s arguments (most recently in ZDMG, 69. 117f.) against 
the originality of this story seem to me lacking in all force. They are as 
follows: 

(a) The story is inserted in a most extraordinarily awkward way in the 
frame-story of Tantrakhyayika 8.—True; but this merely shows the corruptness 
of the Tantrakhyayika tradition. See my reconstructed text and Critical 
Apparatus, III §§ 165, 166, from which it is evident at a glance that Tf 
has transposed to a position before the emboxt story these two sections, 
which all other versions (SP, Pn, Brhatkatha versions) have in their proper 
place after the story. I say, in their proper place; because they make very 
good sense here, and where Tf has them they make nonsense, or very near 
it. It is just this transference in Tf that has produced the ‘‘ awkwardness ” 
of which Hertel complains. The trouble with Hertel here, as in many other 
cases, is that he cannot bring himself to conceive that other versions may 
be more original than Tantrakhyayika.—Furthermore, however, even if the 
“awkwardness” were original, and not secondarily produced in Tantr. 
alone, I agree with Winternitz (/.c.) that it would by no means disprove 
the originality of the story. There are not a few cases in which features 
which seem to us decidedly awkward are nevertheless surely original. 

(b) Hertel asserts that the supposedly secondary insertion of this story 
in Pahlavi is responsible for the fact that the frame-story is there disarranged, 
so that the last owl-minister does not speak.—This is a typical example of 


64 Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


Critique of Hertel’s method.—I find myself here again differing 
from Hertel on an important matter of principle. He seems to 


the way in which Hertel jumps at conclusions which happen to support 
his views. A very moderate amount of comparative study of the texts 
would have shown him how groundless this allegation is. In the first place, 
there were in the original jive owl-ministers, each of whom was consulted 
in turn by the king. Pahlavi mentions the consultation of only three. The 
one who falls out at this place is, therefore, not the only one whom Pahlavi 
drops; nor is he ‘der letzte,” for the last of the owl-ministers, Prakara- 
karna, speaks very much later in the original (Reconstruction LI § 191; 
Tantr. “ A 231”). This latter passage is omitted in Pahlavi too. Does Hertel 
connect this omission with the alleged insertion of the story of the Old 
Man, Young Wife and Thief, which occurred several pages earlier?—But it 
is easy to demonstrate that the earlier omission of an owl-minister, which 
occurs just before this story in Pahlavi, has nothing to do with the story 
in any way. Consult III § 155 of my reconstruction, with Critical Apparatus. 
In this § 155 the original introduced the third owl-minister, Diptaksa. The 
section is omitted in Pahlavi, except that apparently some of the words 
contained in’ it are confused with the preceding vs 62 of the original (in 
the speech of the second minister, Kriraksa). It is clear from this that the 
omission of the third (not “ last”) owl-minister is due to the fact that the 
Pahlavi runs together his speech with that of the second; and this occurs 
before the story in question, and at a point whose originality is certain 
even by Hertel’s standards (for the prose passage III § 155 occurs also in 
the « subrecension of Tantr., “A 225a”). It seems to me equally clear that 
the true reason for Pahlavi’s failure to refer to (wo owl-ministers is a very 
simple one, and the same in both cases. It is, that the original puts no 
story into the mouths of two owl-ministers (the second and the fifth, Kriraksa 
and Prakarakarna). This made it easy for the Pahlavi to overlook the 
brief references to the consultation with these two. The Pahlavi alludes 
only to as many owl-ministers as have stories to tell. It runs together 
Diptaksa’s speech with that of Kriraksa, and leaves out Prakarakarna 
altogether.—At any rate the alteration in Pahlavi, which drops one owl- 
minister at this point, concerns only the undoubtedly original § 155 (Tantr. 
“A 225a”), and does not at all concern the following story. 

(c) If Hertel were right in his hypothesis of the “secondary archetype K,” 
to which he believes all Paiic. versions except Tantr., and in part even 
Tantr. 6, go back, then of course the agreement of all these versions 
would not prove the originality of the story. I shall show (in Chapter V) 
that this *“ archetype K” seems to be a fiction of Hertel’s imagination. 
But it happens that Hertel denies even to “‘K” this particular story, since 
he thinks it was inserted by the immediate archetype of Pahlavi. This 
apparently means that he would deny it also to his imaginary “ N-W,” 
which he supposes to be the common original of Pahlavi, the Ur-SP, and 
Simplicior, In short, it appears that Hertel, unless I misunderstand him, 


Critique of Hertel’s method 65 


me, as to Winternitz (DLZ, 31 [1910], 2760), to lay much too 
great weight on the rule which he lays down (ZDMG. 64.681 f. 
and elsewhere), that fuller versions must be assumed a priori 
to be later, and briefer ones earlier. There is, perhaps, some 
justification for this rule, tho it has many exceptions. But 
Hertel seems to come dangerously near to operating with it 
as a hard-and-fast axiom. Yet he ignores it when it suits his 
purpose. For instance, the Southern Pajicatantra is briefer than 
the Tantrakhyayika; but Hertel does not hesitate to declare 


believes that this story was inserted, purely independently, by at least 
four different redactors tf Paficatantra versions, viz. those of (1) Tantr. 8, 
(2) Ur-SP, (3) Pahlavi, (4) Somadeva,—or their respective immediate arche- 
types. (He would presumably suppose that the Jain versions and Ksemendra 
might have got it from Tantr. f.) That this actually is his theory of the 
story seems indicated by his remark (EKinleitung to Tantrakhyayika Uber- 
setzung p. 141) that it is “ein Schulbeispiel fiir Interpolation derselben Er- 
zihlung in den verschiedensten Rezensionen.” 

Just what does this theory ask us to believe? That at least four redactors 
should have happened to pick out the same story [from where? is not clear] 
—should tell it in the same way [the narrative is closely similar]—and 
should insert it, by mere luck, at the same identical spot in Paficatantra 
Book III; a spot, by the way, in which it is by no means called for by 
the context. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other places in the 
Paiicatantra where it would fit quite as well. Is this rational? Is it not far 
more reasonable to suppose that all these versions, including the Ur-Tan- 
trakhyayika, inherited the story from the original, and that only the sub- 
recension Tantr. .—or the one single manuscript (note this!) which we have 
of it at this point—omitted it, for some reason or other? Does a single Hindu 
manuscript, full of lacunae and corruptions (as Hertel admits), really have 
so much authority as to outweigh the agreement of all other existing versions 
of the Paficatantra, including the other manuscripts of its sister subrecension, 
Tantr. 8? Why may not the archetype of this manuscript have been corrupt, 
or had a lacuna, at this point? Or why may not its copyist, or one of his 
predecessors, have been offended by the awkwardness of the introduction 
to the story in Tantr. 6 (referred to by Hertel himself), and so left the 
story out deliberately, for esthetic reasons? (Personally I think it probable 
that this is the true explanation; cf. p. 122 below.) Or why may not some 
other reason—any of a dozen conceivable reasons—have led to its omission, 
deliberate or accidental, in this one ms. of Tantr. «? 

Hertel’s treatment of this story is worth considering at length, it seems 
to me, as a literal reductio ad adsurdum of his theory that omission of a 
story in any one of certain recensions (Tantr. a, Tantr. 8, Pahlavi, Somadeva, 
Southern Paficatantra, Nepalese Pafc.) constitutes good reason to suspect 
an interpolation. 

Edgerton, Paiicatantra. II. 5 


66 Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction 


that it is an abbreviated text, and that Tantrakhyayika’s text 
is on the whole much more original. Even more abbreviated is 
the text of Somadeva, as Hertel has also clearly indicated; it 
is not for that reason more original. But more important is the 
fact that even versions which are on the whole expanded can 
be shown to have omitted some things from their originals. 
Simplicior is an expanded version; yet it omits many details 
which are found in all the older versions, so that they surely 
would not be denied to the original by Hertel. Numerous in- 
stances can easily be found from my table of correspondences, 
Chapter VIII. Nay more: Simplicior omits at least one entire 
story which Hertel accepts as indubitably original (Brahman, 
Thief and Ogre, Reconstruction III. 7, Tantr. ed. ITI. 6). This 
shows that no such absolute rule can be laid down. There is 
no version that does not contain both omissions and insertions, 
be they deliberate or accidental. Some versions tend more or 
less strongly in one direction, some in the other; but none are 
consistent—no, not even Somadeva, which contains a few un- 
questionable insertions, nor Pirnabhadra (the most expanded of 
the versions handled by me), which contains some unquestionable 
omissions. Nor is it fair to demand, as Hertel does, that we 
prove just why a version omits something, in every given case. 
It would be just as rational to demand that we prove why it 
inserts something. If we were omniscient, we could no doubt 
answer both questions. Sometimes we can guess the reason—tho | 
seldom, I think, can we be as confident as Hertel often sounds. 
Frequently there is no discernible reason. Once more, all that 
we can do in individual instances (after once deciding that 
we cannot assume secondary relationship between the versions 
concerned) is to ask ourselves the question, which is more 
likely: (1) that an identical variation or insertion was made 
independently in two or more versions at the same spot in 
the text, or (2) that this identity was inherited from the ori- 
ginal? The answer will vary with the importance and de- 
finiteness of the identity, with the habits of the versions in 
question, and with the extent to which other (discordant) ver- 
sions may tend to support one or the other alternative. But 
it is a fundamental error of principle to make the assumption 
a priori, even tentatively, that when two or more versions 


Critique of Hertel’s method 67 


have a passage of which the rest have no trace, the former: 
have inserted it, secondarily.’ 


’ Hertel’s remarks ZDMG. 69. 118f. are entirely beside the point as far 
as my position is concerned; their only weight is derived from the fact that 
Winternitz (see note 6 above, page 63) said “alten Rezensionen” instead 
of “ gegenseitig unabhiingigen Rezensionen”’, which he presumably meant. 
For instance: Ksemendra is dependent on Tantrakhyayika, and therefore. 
agreements between these two versions prove nothing. The Jain versions 
are interdependent with Tantrakhyayika, and Pirnabhadra is directly de- 
pendent on both Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior, or their immediate arche- 
types. The Anwari Suhaili is known to have used other sources of Indian 
origin besides the Kalilah-wa-Dimnah. Meghavijaya and other late versions 
which have the story III. 1 (Ass in Panther’s Skin) in its original place of 
course got it from some version on which they depended (probably the 
Tantrakhyayika, cf. page 33). In short, when Hertel says ‘‘ der Winternitzsche 
Grundsatz fiihrt uns wieder zu Kosegarten zuriick”, he is perhaps making 
a good point in dialectics, but all he really does is to prove that Winternitz 
was unfortunate in his phraseology. If we correct this as I have suggested, 
the “ Grundsatz” is entirely sound. Cf. the preceding footnote 6. 


CHAPTER IV 


SECONDARY INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF VARIOUS 
VERSIONS 


Orp SyrtAc AND ARABIC 


Common archetype of the Old Syriac and the Arabic.—That 
the various Arabic versions and their descendants go back to 
the same archetype (the Pahlavi) as the Old Syriac—not, for 
instance, to a separate translation from Sanskrit—is shown by 
three considerations. 

1. They contain one interpolated story (Treacherous Bawd, 
I. 3c) at the same point; and both transpose the story of the 
Three Fish (original I. 11), making it I. 7. In addition they 
show a number of common omissions of original stories—which 
might, however, conceivably have been omitted independently. 

2. They are in general very close to each other in verbal 
details thruout the work. This has never been, and could not 
be, doubted by any one who takes the trouble to acquaint 
himself with the texts. It is hardly necessary to quote examples. 
Where unoriginal details are inserted in either Old Syriac or 
Arabic, they are usually found in the other also. 

3. The Pafcatantra sections of both are found imbedded in 
a larger whole, most of which is found alike in both (the 
parts which precede the Pafcatantra in the Arabie are not 
found in our ms. of the Syriac, which is fragmentary at the 
beginning; they include some material inserted by the Arabic 
translator).1 | 

We may designate as ‘Ur-Pa” the hypothetical Sanskrit 
version from which the Pahlavi translation was made. 


* Benfey believed that the original Sanskrit work included not only the 
five books of our Paficatantra, but also the other sections peculiar to the 
Pahlavi. He supposed that these had been lost in the Sanskrit Pajicatantra 
versions. This opinion would surely never have been exprest if Benfey had 
been in possession of all the evidence which we possess. 


The “ Ur-SP,” archetype of SP, N, and H 69 


SoMADEVA AND KsEMENDRA 


Common archetype of Somadeva and Ksemendra.— On the 
reasons for supposing that these two authors got their Paica- 
tantra sections from their general common archetype, the North- 
western Bryhatkatha, see above, pages 51 f. As there stated, 
it seems to me that this common ar¢hetype of the Pafcatantra 
sections rests on a presumption—a quite strong presumption, 
to be sure—but not on any absolute proof. 


SouTHERN PaNcatantra, Neratese PANcATANTRA, AND 
HiropapEsa 


The ‘ Ur-SP,’’ archetype of SP, N, and H.—The fact that 
these three versions go back to a common archetype is proved 
by the following facts. 

1. They all contain a secondary story, the Shepherdess and 
Henry overs (ob L212, oNelied2) AylL.:6).4.IneSP and) N:sit 
occurs at the same point; in H in the same book, but not at 
the same point (H, as we have seen, rearranges its stories to 
a very considerable extent). 

2. In verbal details they correspond most strikingly and 
constantly, and often in cases where the other versions suggest 
that they are unoriginal. (Cf. Hertel, Pavic., p. 432 ff.) N has 
only the verses preserved, and H has omitted many of the 
stories altogether; but in so far as the same text-units occur 
in these three versions, they agree so strikingly that no one, 
I think, can doubt their connexion. So far as I know no one 
has doubted it. Since the fact seems to be unquestioned and un- 
questionable, I shall not take the space to prove it by examples 
here. My Critical Apparatus contains numerous examples. 

The “‘Ur-N,” the secondary archetype of N and H.—That the 
Nepalese Pancatantra, containing only verses, goes back to a 
common archetype (called by me “Ur-N”’) with Hitopadesa, 
an archetype closely related to the Ur-SP but not quite the 
same, is indicated by the following facts. 

1. Books I and II are transposed in these two texts, and 
in them alone. 

2. In many verbal details of the verses found in both texts 
they agree against all other versions, even SP. See Hertel, 


70 Chapter LV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


Paiic. p. 433 £., for examples. Much more numerous examples 
can easily be got from my Critical Apparatus. 


TANTRAKHYAYIKA AND KSEMENDRA 


Ksemendra used a Tantrakhyayika manuscript.—That one of 
the sources of Ksemendra was a Tantrakhyayika text seems 
to me (following Hertel) to be clearly enuf indicated by the 
fact that Ks has five unoriginal stories, all of which occur in 
the Tantrakhyayika in the same places. One of the five (T 
and Ks TV. 1, Punisht Onion-Thief) occurs in no other version; 
another (T and Kg III. 11) occurs nowhere else in the same 
place Gn Pn in Book I). These circumstances seem to indicate 
that the text used by Ks for these stories was either precisely 
our T’, or a manuscript very close to it. The other three stories 
are found also in the Jain versions at the same points. They 
are: Blue Jackal (T. I. 8, Ks I. 7), Jackal Outwits Camel and 
Lion (T I. 18, Ks I. 12), and Potter as Warrior (T and Ks IV. 3; 
in T ed. put in Appendix because not found in 2, ef. p. 78). 

Agreements in verbal details between T and Ks are neces- 
sarily few, because Ks abbreviates and omits so many details 
that it leaves only a very bare skeleton of the stories. But 
there are some cases in which Ks seems to have followed T 
in details that are secondary. See e. g. my Critical Apparatus 
on I § 547. 


TANTRAKHYAYIKA, SIMPLICIOR, AND PORYABHADRA 


The ‘‘Ur-Simplicior,” source of our Simplicior, and one of the 
main sources of Purnabhadra.—I have already (page 31) referred 
to this older form of Simplicior, the reality of which seems 
to me to be indicated with great probability by Pirnabhadra’s 
treatment of Book III, in which he has apparently followed 
a Simplicior text, but one which had not yet introduced the 
extensive alterations in the latter part of that book which are 
found in all manuscripts of Simplicior now known to us. I 
have also referred (page 31) to the fact that Ptrnabhadra’s 
text is for the most part a mosaic of this Ur-Simplicior (or 
at least of a text which must have been practically identical 
in language with our Simplicior) and the Tantrakhyayika. This 
fact has been proved by Hertel, especially in the Parallel 


The ‘ Ur-Simplicior.’—Duplications in Pirnabhadra 71 


Specimens of text in HOS. Vol. 13. These cases are quite 
typical, and are confirmed by my Critical Apparatus. It is 
hardly necessary to quote further examples here. But it does 
seem to me worth while to quote a few very curious passages 
in which Ptrnabhadra has done this mosaic work so poorly 
that he has double versions of the same passage side by side, 
taking the one from Tantrakhyayika, the other from Simplicior. 
This seems to have escaped Hertel’s notice. 

Duplications in Pirnabhadra, due to his use of two sources. — 
I have noted four clear cases of this sort; there are probably 
others. 


1. Reconstruction KM §§ 11, 12. In reply to the king’s request that he 
instruct his sons, the brahman Visnusarman replies: 


Spl p. 2, 1.19 deva Srittyatain me tathyavacanam, nahath vidyavikrayain 
sasanasatenapi karomi. punar etans tava putran masasatkena yadi niti- 
sastrajfian na karomi, tatah svanamatyagam karomi.—athasau raja Xe. 

T A 2 (after vs found only in T; the brahman says) tat kith bahuna; sritya- 
tam ayarh mama vacanasinhanadah. naham arthalipsur ity evain bravimi, 
na ca mamasitivarsasya vyavrttasarvendriyasya kascid arthopabhoga- 
kalah. kiran tu tvaddhitarthain buddhiptirvako yam arambhah. tal likh- 
yatam adyatano divasah. yady ahath na sanmasabhyantarat tava putran 
nitisastrarn praty ananyasaman karomi, tato mamarhasi margasaindar- 
Sanena hastasatam apakramayitum. iti.—etam asambhavyain brah- 
manasya pratijfiain srutva sasacivo raja &e. 

Pn p. 2, 1.4 deva, sriiyataia me tathyavacanam. nahai Vidyavikrayain 
karomi sasanasatena. etan punar masasatkena yadi nitisastrajfian na 
karomi, tatah svanaimaparityagamn karomi. 

kith bahuna, srityatain mamaisa sinhanadah. naham arthalipsur bra- 
vimi, na ca me ’sitivarsasya vyavrttasarvendriyarthasya kimncid arthena 
prayojanam. kim tu tvatprarthanasiddhyarthai sarasvativinodaim karis- 
yaini. tal likhyatam adyatano divasah. yady ahah sanmasabhyantare 
tava putran nitisastrarh praty ananyasadrsan na karomi, tato ’rhati me 
devo devamargam sarndarsayitum. itii—etaih brahmanasyasainbhavyai 


8 py ae 


pratijfiarn srutva sasacivo raja &e. 


It seems as clear as possible that Ptrnabhadra has simply taken over 
bodily first Simplicior’s, and then Tantrakhyayika’s, version of this 
passage, so that it has two variant versions of the same matter. 

The next case is perhaps even more striking, since it introduces an 
internal inconsistency in Ptirnabhadra’s text. 

2. In the story of the Cat, Partridge, and Hare (Reconstruction III. 4), 
as told in Tantrakhyayika (whose general sense is supported by most 
versions and is clearly close to the original), the partridge and hare set 
off to have their dispute decided (our text, IIL § 95). In § 97 the partridge 


12 Chapter LV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


asks the hare (so T, SP; Pn with Pa makes the hare ask), who shall be 
the judge? In § 98 the other replies suggesting the pious cat who, he 
says, lives by the river engaging in austerities etc. In § 99 the former 
opposes this suggestion, because the cat is ksudra; here 'T, followed by 
Pn, quotes a verse (our III vs 48) to back up this opinion. In § 100 the 
eat, overhearing this conversation, engages in prayer (Jain versions, 
preaches a sermon), striking a religious attitude to deceive them.—Now 
Simplicior introduces its equivalent of § 100 before the question of the 
judge has been raised at all. The cat hears the partridge and the hare 
quarreling and decides to deceive them, by acting as described. After 
this (§ 100) Spl makes the hare suggest (without any preliminary question 
by the partridge, contrast our § 97), in what. corresponds to our § 98: 


Spl p. 67, 1.15: Sasaka aha, bhoh kapifijala, esa naditire tapasvi dharma- 
vadi tisthati, tad enatn prechavah. 


To which the partridge replies, in what corresponds to our § 99, not in- 
deed rejecting the proposal outright, but: 


Spl p. 67, 1.16: kapifijala aha, nanu svabhavato ’yam asmakaih satrubht- 
tah; tad dure sthitva prechavah. 


Now Ptrnabhadra, as I indicated above, follows Tantrakhyayika closely 
(the exact language may be found in my Critical Apparatus ad loc.) in 
§§ 95—99 and vs 48,—reversing, however, the roles of the partridge and 
the hare in the conversation. (Pahlavi does the same, but the agreement 
is doubtless purely accidental; the like occurs not infrequently in all 
versions; SP supports 'T', the Brhatkatha versions are indecisive, and Spl 
rather supports T, as just stated.) Pirnabhadra’s § 100 seems to combine 
‘Tl’ and Spl. But after § 100 Ptrnabhadra follows with Simplicior’s version 
of §§ 98, 99, as quoted above, in the position where Spl has them, and 
in substantially identical language (Pn p. 190, 1. 23). In other words, 
Ptrnabhadra, anxious to omit nothing found in either of his primary 
sources, forgets that he has already represented the partridge as suggesting 
the cat as judge, and the hare as opposing the suggestion; and here he 
makes the hare offer the same suggestion, as if nothing had been said on 
the subject before (bhos tittire, esa naditire tapasvi dharmayadi tisthati, 
tad enain prechavah), while the partridge counsels caution (as in Spl), 
altho according to the preceding part of Pirnabhadra (taken from Tantr.) 
it was the partridge himself who first made the suggestion! 

3 and 4. Other cases in which Ptrnabhadra has clearly reproduced 
the same passage twice, once in its Tantrakhyayika form and once in 
its Simplicior form, will be found in my Critical Apparatus on I §$ 216 
and 217 (which must be considered together) and I § 442. To save space 
I refrain from quoting or discussing these passages here. 


The ‘‘ Ur-Tantrakhyayika,”’ archetype of Tantrakhyayika and 
the “ Ur-Simplicior.””—TI have indicated above (pages 36 f.), very 
briefly, the nature of my reasons for assuming a common 


——— = eee eee ee 


The “ Ur-Tantrakhyayika ” 13 


secondary archetype for Tantrakhyayika and the Ur-Simplicior 
(and, of course, Ptrnabhadra). This secondary archetype I eall 
the “ Ur-Tantrakhyayika,” for lack of a better name. That the 
two versions in question are secondarily related can be shown 
by the two first methods outlined on pages 49 ff., especially 
the first of them. That is, they both contain a number of se- 
condary stories inserted at the same points; and they agree 
to a considerable extent in verbal details, many of which may 
reasonably be suspected of being secondary. These correspon- 
dences can hardly be explained by supposing that either Tan- 
trakhyayika or Ur-Simplicior is based directly on the other. 
For each contains original features which the other lacks. And 
I believe there is no reason for supposing that either is a con- 
taminated version. Of course, it is hard to disprove contami- 
nation. The Simplicior, in particular, has (as we have seen, 
page 30) many striking features that did not belong to the 
original. And if anyone chooses to suppose that these secondary 
features were not the work of the author of Ur-Simplicior, 
but were taken by him from some older Pancatantra version, 
now lost—there is no way to prove him wrong. This much, 
however, is clear to me: there is not a shadow of reason for 
believing that Simplicior has been contaminated with any other 
Paneatantra version of which we now have knowledge, or 
whose former existence we have any conclusive reason to 
assume. In other words, I believe that when Simplicior agrees 
with any version other than Tantrakhyayika, or Pirnabhadra, 
or other (later) offshoots of these versions, such agreements 
are always either inheritances from the original Pancatantra, 
or chance coincidences in petty details. Nowhere do I find 
signs of secondary connexions between Simplicior and, for in- 
stance, the Southern Pafcatantra, Somadeva, or the Pahlavi. 
(See Chapter Ve for a critique of Hertel’s contrary opinion.) 

Secondary stories inserted in “‘ Ur-Tantrakhyayika’”’ and found 
only in its descendants.—I believe that the Ur-Tantrakhyayika 
contained certainly three,—probably five, and very possibly 
a sixth, if not even more,—secondary stories. On page 36, 
note 29, I give a list of the six stories which may, in most 
cases with virtual certainty, be attributed to this secondary 
archetype. The reason for this is that they are all (except the 


74 Chapter IV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


sixth) found in the same place in T, Spl, and Pn, and in most 
cases also in Ksemendra (which used Tantrakhyayika), but in-no 
other Paficatantra versions. If I am right in the principle laid 
down on page 61, this in itself would be enuf to make us strongly 
suspect that they do not belong to the original Pancatantra. But 
on the principle establisht on page 58, that stories found at the 
same place in several offshoots of an archetype pretty surely 
belong to that archetype, we should have to attribute the first 
five of them, at least, to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika (as the arche- 
type of T, Spl, and Pn, in all of which these stories occur at the 
same place). To be sure, two of these five are not found in Tantra- 
khyayika « Their presence in Tantr. 8 might be explained by 
assuming with Hertel that Tantr. 8 is contaminated from some 
other Pancatantra version. But I shall show later (pages 121 ff.) 
that this opinion seems untenable. Furthermore, I have failed to 
find the slightest reason for regarding any of the differences 
between Tantr. « and @ as due to influence from any outside 
version. I am satisfied that the features which ~ contains and 
which « omits are mostly original features which @ has lost, pre- 
sumably in most cases as a result of lacunae or corruptions in 
the manuscripts or their archetypes. (We have only two mss. 
of 'T’a.in all, and for a large part of the work we have only 
one. Both contain many lacunae, sometimes recognized by the 
copyists, sometimes not.) If we reject the theory that Tantr. 
is contaminated, as I think we must, there remains no other 
plausible explanation of the discrepancies between the two sub- 
recensions. I have shown above (page 63, note 6) that Tantr. « 
omitted one story which belonged to the original Pafcatantra. 

All these stories are regarded by Hertel, also, as not parts 
of the original Paficatantra. But since Hertel seems to me to 
reject stories much too lightly, I think it desirable to show 
just how much definite reason there is, from «ny own point of 
view, for rejecting them. In addition to the general considera- 
tion referred to above, that they occur at the same place in 
only one of the four independent streams of Paficatantra tra- 
dition, I find the following specifie grounds in each case. 

1. The Blue Jackal (T I. 8, Spl I. 10, Pn I. 11, Ks 1.7; also 
H Il. 6 Pet., III. 7 Mi.).—To begin with, the occurrence of 
this story in Hitopadega cannot be considered an indication of 


Secondary stories in Ur-Tantrakhydyika: Blue Jackal T5 
its belonging to the original Paficatantra. Not only does it 
occur in a different place (which means little, since the Hit. 
transposes its stories very generally); but it is told there in a 
wholly different way, and with a wholly different catch-verse. 
Moreover, it is not found in any manuscript of the Southern 
Pancatantra, nor in the Nepalese Pancatantra. This indicates 
that it almost surely did not occur in the “Ur-SP,” which was 
the archetype from which the Hitopadesa got its Pancatantra 
materials. Hence, the story in Hitopadesa is an interpolation. 

The insertion of the Blue Jackal story where it is found in 
T, Spl, Pn, and Ks disturbs the context. The situation, in the 
original Paneatantra, is as follows. By telling the story of the 
Louse and Flea (I. 7), Damanaka tries to prove to the lion 
that “‘one should not grant asylum to one whose character is 
unknown” (na tv avijiiadtasilaya kascid dadyat pratisrayam, 1 
vs 86). Upon hearing the story, the lon in § 309 quite na- 
turally inquires what, then, 7s the nature of the bull: “ how 
ean I recognize his hostility to me, and what is his manner 
of fighting?’ Damanaka’s suggestion that he does not know 
the bull’s real character bears fruit at once; the lion makes 
inquiries on the subject. Compare the parallel situation where 
Damanaka, later, makes the same suggestion to the bull re- 
garding the lion (with Story I. 9, Strandbirds and Sea, the 
moral of which is that one ought not to take irrevocable steps 
without knowing what one’s enemy can do), and immediately 
the bull is prompted to inquire (I § 453) what the lion’s style 
of combat is. 

But the versions which insert the story of the Blue Jackal 
at this point (just after the story of the Louse and Flea, and 
just before the lion’s question to Damanaka, our I § 309) 
disturb the continuity of the tale. The moral of the Blue Jackal 
story is that it is dangerous to slight old friends in favor of 
strangers. This is a wholly different *point, which Damanaka 
had previously mentioned (I § 271, and vs 76). If the Blue 
Jackal story had been told in the original Pancatantra, it 
should rather have been told at that place. Where it stands 
in Tantr. ete., it spoils the logic of the lion’s question in I 
§ 309; for that question is evidently the appropriate reply not 
to the Blue Jackal story, but to that of the Louse and Flea. 


76 Chapter LV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


2. Jackal outwits Camel and Lion (T I. 13, Spl I. 16, Pn I. 
21, Ks I. 12).—This is a part of a longer insertion, an ex- 
pansion of the brief conversation between Karataka and Dama- 
naka in the original I §§ 456—458 and vs 128. After vs 128, 
Tantr. and the related versions insert several sentences and 
verses spoken by the two jackals to each other, and finally 
this story told by Damanaka to Karataka to illustrate the 
wisdom of “looking out for number one.’”’ None of the other 
versions contain any trace either of the story or of the sur- 
rounding material. The story itself is furthermore an obvious 
piece of secondary patchwork. It is made up of elements stolen 
from two other stories, which belonged to the original Paiea- 
tantra, namely, the story of the Lion’s Retainers and Camel 
(reconstruction I. 8), and that of the Ass without Heart and 
Kars (LV. 1). This will be evident, I think, to anyone who 
examines the story; the imitation of the former story is noted 
by Hertel, Tantr., Hinleitung, p. 134, top line. These con- 
siderations seem to make it practically certain that the story 
is secondary. , 

3. Weaver Somilaka (T II. 4, Spl II. 5, Pn II. 6).—As in the 
preceding case, this story is found in the midst of some un- 
original material, which disturbs the context; one particulary 
foolish feature in it is noted by Hertel, Tantr., Kinleitung, 
p. 136, second paragraph. The consensus of other versions shows 
that the order of the Tantrakhyayika is otherwise badly con- 
fused in the vicinity of this passage; see my Critical Apparatus 
and the conspectus of text-units, Chapter VIII. That is, Tantr. 
not only has inserted much secondary material here, but has 
confused the arrangement of the materials inherited from the 
original. As to this story, it appears to have been built up 
around the theme of a verse which apparently was found in 
the original, viz. the vs yad abhavi na tad bhavi &e., recon- 
struction II vs 68. This*vs is found in SP and N, at the same. 
place, as well as in Tin the middle of the Somilaka story. In 
SP it stands between two bits of prose that are found in Sim- 
plicior and Parnabhadra just after the Somilaka story, as it 
were driving home the moral of the story, which is identical 
with the moral of the verse and of these bits of prose (viz. 
that fate, or karma, decides everything). As so often, the 


Secondary stories in Ur-Tantrakhyayika: Weaver Somilaka beri 


Southern Pafcatantra is here the most faithful representative 
of the original. What evidently happened was that this familiar 
moral, stated in the original in a few prose words and one 
stanza, was developt by the Ur-Tantrakhyayika in the long 
Somilaka story (which incidentally is a wretched piece of 
work, stupidly composed and awkwardly presented). The ori- 
ginal verse was then included in the new story. The original 
prose disappears from our Tantrakhyayika text altogether, but 
is preserved in the Jain versions, being placed just after the 
story. It is reasonable to assume that the Jain versions have 
followed the Ur-Tantrakhyayika in this, and that our Tantra- 
khyayika has lost this prose owing to the utter confusion into 
which its text has fallen in the vicinity of this passage.? 

4, Talking Cave (TB III. 11, Appendix to ed.; Spl III. 4, Pn 
III. 15).— This story (not found in Ta; must have been in the 
version of T used by Ks, which refers to the catch-vs, see my 
Critical Apparatus) occurs in a passage (our III § 249) which 
as a whole is found only in T, Spl, Pn, and Ks, and is there- 
fore very possibly secondary in its entirety. In it the wise 
owl-minister Raktaksa, foreseeing that the crow is going to 
destroy the owls, and having warned them in vain, summons 
his family and departs with them, thereby escaping destruction. 
Nothing is said in the sequel by which we could tell whether 
this much belongs to the original or not. On the principle (cf. 
p. 61) that a short passage such as this may conceivably have 
been omitted from the other three streams of tradition, and 
that it fits the context well enuf, I do not feel like absolutely 
rejecting our III § 249, tho of course I enclose it in paren- 


2 The fatalistic or karma-moral of the story is regarded by Hertel as 
sufficient proof of its unoriginality, since he believes the original contained 
only stories teaching lessons of trickiness (ntti); cf. p. 5 above. While this 
argument may have some force, by way of confirmation of results otherwise 
proved, I do not believe that it has very much. I should never admit that 
such a moral in itself alone would justify us in doubting the originality of 
a story. There is no question that the original contained at least stanzas 
teaching this moral (cf. for instance II vss 70 and 71, just after this passage 
in my reconstruction; these two vss are found in T and Pahlavi, and I 
presume, therefore, that Hertel would not deny that they are original). And 
if stanzas, why not stories? Hertel expects a great deal too much single- 
mindedness, and too much care, from a Hindu composer. 


18 Chapter [V: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


theses as doubtful; the chances are, in fact, that it is unoriginal. 
These chances are much greater with the story. Nevertheless 
I think the story probably belongs to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, 
tho surely not to the Ur-Pancatantra. Its omission in Tx is 
probably due to the fact that the T archetype (preserved in T@) 
was corrupt at the point.where the story was introduced.?*— 
Incidentally the story is very poorly told in T; the Jain ver- 
sions handle it much better, and certainly come closer to the 
way it was originally told. The inferior style of the story in 
T may have been one reason why the redactor of T« omitted 
it, if he omitted it deliberately. 

5. Potter as Warrior (TB, Spl, Pn, and Ks IV. 3; not in Ta). 
The omission of this story in Te proves nothing at all, since 
Ta demonstrably has lost part of the original matter both before 
and after the point at which the story is inserted (namely, T% 
[V vs 18, reconstruction IV vs 20, before the story, and Té 
A 301, with, vs 23, our IV § 84 and vs 21, after the story). 
Ta ends the fourth book very abruptly with its vs 17 (our 
vs 19), and there is no doubt in my mind that the original 
was longer. Nevertheless it seems to me unlikely that the ori- 
ginal Pane. contained the story here under consideration—for 
the general reasons mentioned page 61. In this case, as in the 
preceding (Talking Cave), I am unable to reinforce them by 
any internal evidence pointing to the insertion of the story. It 
is appropriate enuf (if we assume the originality of Tg A 297 
and what follows; this passage and the story go hand in hand, 
and if one is unoriginal, the other evidently is). And it is, at 
least in the Jain versions, very well told; in the Tantrakhyayika, 
not quite so well—The general probabilities are, therefore, that 
the story belonged to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, but not to the 
original Pafticatantra. 


° TG reads, after vatsyamah (8 vart®).in the text of § 249 (Tantr. p. 136, 1. 3, 
and Appendix, p.165, 1.1); ima ca guhim Gsannavinadsopasprstam anigatam (v.1. 
*tatir) tyajyatai (v. 1. samntyajya) Sreya (v. 1. Sreyah syat). ulctair ca: —At which 
point follows the catch-verse of the Talking Cave story, and the story itself. 
No words resembling this sentence occur in Spl or Pn. T« makes reasonable 
sense out of them (a lectio facilior), as follows: ima ...°Sopasrstaiir tyajama 
iti; and then omits the story. Hertel regards Ta as the original, and thinks 
T@ has inserted the story. The opposite theory seems at least as likely. On 
the general question of passages found in Tf and omitted in Ta see page 121. 


Other secondary stories in the Ur-Tantrakhyayika 19 


6. The Clever Havisa (T III. 11, Ks III. 11, Pn I. 19).—Here 
we have a story whose antiquity is even more questionable. 
It occurs in the same place only in Ksemendra and ‘Tantra- 
khyayika 8 (but it may well have occurred also in Te; we 
cannot be sure, since Ta has a long lacuna at the point 
where the story is found). Even the Jain versions do not have 
it at the same place; Ptrnabhadra has it in the first book, 
and Simplicior does not have it at all. Hence it is doubtful 
whether it was found even in the Ur-Tantrakhyayika; while 
there is no reason whatever to suppose that it belonged to 
the original Paftcatantra. 

7. Other stories which may possibly have been found in the 
Ur-Tantrakhyayika.— Our Tantrakhyayika contains two. other 
stories (not to mention the story of the Treacherous Bawd, 
interpolated in Ta as III. 5; see page 40, note 30) which are 
not found even in the Jain versions (Spl and Pn). One of 
them, King Sivi (T ed. III. 7), is found in no other version 
used by me (it is not even found in Ts, but since the ms. 
of Ta has a lacuna at the place where it occurs, we cannot 
tell whether it occurred in it originally or not). The other, 
T IV. 1,.the Punisht Onion-Thief, occurs in the same place 
in Ksemendra, but nowhere else (the sole ms. of Ta has a 
lacuna where it occurs, also). The failure of these two stories to 
occur in the Jain versions may conceivably be due to omission 
by them (Simplicior, at least, omits some original stories). 
Likewise, it is conceivable that some of the numerous stories 
found in the Jain versions, but not in Tantrakhyayika nor 
any other Pancatantra version, may have occurred in the Ur- 
Tantrakhyayika. But here we cannot do more than conjecture ; 
and speculation on this subject is not likely to be fruitful. 
There is, in any case, not the slightest reason for supposing 
that any of these stories belonged to the original Paneatantra. 

Verbal correspondences between Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior 
and Pirnabhadra.—The secondary relationships between Tantra- 
khyayika and the Jain versions are, I think, sufficiently esta- 
blisht by these unoriginal stories inserted in them. We should 
expect, however, to find them confirmed by minor agreements 
in sense and language more striking and extensive than is 
the case with versions whose only connexion is thru the ori-— 


80 Chapter [V: Secondary interrelationships of various versions - 


ginal Paneatantra. In fact we do find that Simplicior (not to 
speak of Pitrnabhadra, which as we have seen used Tantra- 
khyayika directly) agrees at many places with Tantrakhyayika 
much more closely than either of them with other versions. 
To be sure, it is often hard to tell whether these agreements 
are secondary, or whether they go back to the original Pafica- 
tantra. Since both the Southern Pafcatantra and its relatives, 
and the Brhatkatha versions, tend to abbreviate the text in 
details, we have in Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions the 
only Sanskrit versions that are not essentially abbreviated. 
Therefore, when they are fuller than the other Sanskrit versions, 
we must always consider the possibility that they preserve the 
original; and frequently the Pahlavi offshoots prove that this is 
the case. Failing such confirmation from the Pahlavi, it is often 
impossible to tell whether we are confronting an abbreviation 
of the original by SP ete. and the Brhatkatha versions (and an 
accidental emission in the Pahlavi), or an expansion by the Ur- 
Tantrakhyayika. The greater part of the phrases and sentences 
which I print enclosed in parentheses in my reconstructed text, 
indicating that their originality is uncertain, are of just this sort: 
they are found in Tantrikhyayika and its relatives (Spl or Pn or 
both), but nowhere else (unless in Ksemendra). They may be ori- 
ginal, but there is no definite proof of it. It is probable that many 
of these passages are really unoriginal. For there is no doubt 
that the Ur-Tantrakhyayika contained some expansions in minor 
details, in addition to the above-mentioned insertions of stories. 

Clearly secondary correspondences in detail between Tantra- 
khyayika and Simplicior (and Pirnabhadra).—A few examples 
will now be given of minor agreements between Tantrakhyayika 
and the Jain versions (especially Simplicior), all of which must, 
I think, be regarded as secondary, and most of which must have 
originated in the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, the common secondary 
archetype of these versions. Otherwise they would have to be 
purely accidental, which at least in some of the cases seems 
to me impossible. 


1. Reconstruction 1 §§ 18—22, ineciuding vss 4, 5.—Here we have a 
passage in which the order of the original, as proved by the general 
agreement of SP, H, So, and Pa, supported by the requirements of the 
sense, is departed from in T and the Jain versions. The latter also, and 


Secondary correspondences between Tantrakhyayika and Jain versions 81 


especially T and Pn, have a greatly expanded version. The expansion 

probably goes back to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, but, in part at least, 

certainly not to the original Paficatantra. 

The passage includes ‘TA 7 and 8 and vs 4; SP lines 56 ff. with vs 5: 
N vs 3; Hp p. 48, ll. 19 ff. with vs 16, Hm p. 5, ll. 5 ff. with vs 19; So 18, 
20-23; Ks 261-263 (Mank. 6—8); Spl p. 7, N. 12 ff.; Pn p.4, ll. 18 ff. 
with vss 5, 6; Sy A2; also in Arabic versions. 

The situation is near the beginning of Book I. We have just heard 
how the bull Sainjivaka, abandoned by the caravan, had recovered from 
his accident and was enjoying himself on the banks of the Jumna, eating 
his fill and bellowing mightily. Now the text proceeds to introduce the 
lion Pingalaka, as follows. I quote first the readings of the other texts, 
then those of T, Spl, Pn, and Ks. 

$18: 

SP tasmin vane mrgadhipatih pingalako nama svaviryarjitarajyasukham 
anubhavann aste. tatha ca (a hi). 

_H tasmin vane pingalakanama sinhah svabhujoparjitarajyasukham anu- 
bhavann aste. tatha coktam. 

So tatkalam cabhavat tatra natidtre vanantare, sinhah piigalako nama 
vikramakrantakananah. 

Sy In einiger Entfernung von ihm war ein Liwe, der jene Ebene im Be- 
sitz hatte, und bei ihm befanden sich in Menge Schakale, Fiichse und 
wilde Tiere aller Gattungen.—Ar as Sy. 
vs 4: | 

(In Sanskrit only in T, Pn; see below.) 

Sy Dieser Liwe war unklug [so Schulthess by emend.; the ms. reading 
means “ klug”] und unpraktisch [cf. anitisastrajfie in T’, Pn} und durch 
sein Regiment tibermiitig gemacht [cf. sattvocchrite]|.—Ar, JCap 39. 19 
Erat autem leo magnanimis [Hebrew probably “ proud,” says Deren- 
bourg] in suis negociis, singularis in suo consilio. KF 3.14 Now this 
lion was exceedingly haughty in spirit, and whatever he wisht to do, 
he did independently, without employing the advice of anyone. Not- 
withstanding, his knowledge was not very perfect. 


vs 9: 

SP, N, H: nabhiseko na sarhskarah sinhasya kriyate mrgaih 

vikramarjitavittasya svayam eva mrgendrata. 

Variants: a, N satkarah. c, SP Sjitasattvasya.—For Pn’s reading see below. 
Cf. So vikramakrantakananah, under § 18; this perhaps represents pada ¢ 
of this vs. Possibly Sy and Ar also confuse this vs with the preced- 
ing. 

§ 19: 

SP sa caikada (« sa kadacit, so read!) pipasakulita udakarthi yamunatiram 
agat (« yamunakaccham avatarat, so read!). 

H sa caikada pipasakulitah paniyarn patuih yamunakaccham avatarat. 

So (20ab) sa siiho jatu toyartham agacchan yamunatatam. 

Not in Pa. 


Edgerton, Paiicatantra, II. 6 


82 Chapter IV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


§ 20: 

SP tena cananubhttapirvam akalapralayaghanagarjitam iva sainjivaka- 
narditam asravi. 

H tena ca tatra sinhenananubhttam (Hm °ta-ptirvakam) akalapralayaghana- 
garjitam (Hm om pralaya, Hp om ghana, but v. |. has it) iva sainjivaka- 
narditam asravi. . 

So tasyaran nadam asrausit sainjivakakakudmatah, srutva cfisrutaptrvain 
tain tannidain diksu mtirchitam. 

Sy Als nun der Liwe und sein Gefolge die Stimme des Stieres Snzbug 
hérten [fiirehteten sie sich, cf. next], weil sie noch nie einen Stier ge- 
sehen, noch seine Stimme gehért hatten. 

Ar as Sy, except that the versions refer only to the lion, not to his 
attendants. 

§ 21: 

SP srutva ca kimeic chankitamanah (« cakita®) svagatam alocya (« °cayan) 
ttisnih sthitavan: kim idam, ko ’treti. 

H tae chrutva paniyam apitva sacakitah parivrtya svasthanam agatya kim ' 
(Hp svagatam for kim) idam ity alocyayain (Hm alocayans) tiisnih sthitah. 

So (cf. preceding, srutva &c.) sa sinho ’cintayat kasya bata nado ’yam 
idrsah, ntinam atra mahat sattvaih kithecit tisthaty avaimi (Brockhaus 
apaimi) tat, tad dhi drstvaiva math hanyad vanad vapi pravasayet. 
iti so ’pitapaniya eva gatva vanain drutam, bhitah sinho nigthyasid 
aikaram anuyayisu. [This is interesting as one of the rare cases in 
which So has expanded the text.| 

Sy |ef. preceding, fiirchteten sie sich|-- aber in der Erwiigung: Mein Ge- 
folge darf nicht merken, daB ich in Furcht geraten bin, stellte sich 
der Lowe furchtlos und blieb ruhig auf seinem Platze stehen. 


Here follows, in all these versions, § 23, introducing the two jackals, 
Karataka and Damanaka. 

The version of T and Pn is markedly different from the above; and 
Spl and Ks, while much briefer, apparently indicate that their archetypes 
agreed with 'T and Pn. The differences concern in part additions to the 
text (as I believe), but especially markt alterations in order, which result 
‘in a much poorer arrangement of the materials than that indicated by 
the other, independent versions. 

Let us first consider T. I italicize the words which literally reflect the 
common original. T reads: 


($18, beginning) atha [kaddcit, ef. SP «, $19] tasmin vane sarvamrgaparivrtah 
(cf. last clause of Sy] pivgalako nima sintha— 

($19) udakagrahanartham yamundkaccham avatitirsuh— 

(§20) samjivakasya mahiantaih garjitam [so mss., ed.em. garjitasabdam| asrnot. 

(§ 21) tath ca Srutvativaksubhitahrdaya adkdram {cf. So| achidya mandala- 
vatapradese caturmandalavasthanenavasthitah. 


Here follows, in our § 22, a section found only in T and its relatives Spl 
and Pn, an explanation of the curious terms introduced by them in § 21 


| me ed ‘ ‘ » 
Secondary correspondences between Tantrakhyayika and Jain versions 83 


(which explanation, by the way, leaves us more in the dark than ever; 
obscurum per obscurius!). This § 22 may be original; that is, its originality 
cannot be disproved. 

After § 22'T proceeds: atha pifigalakah—and here follows a series of 
epithets describing his rule, in the extreme of the ornate kavya style, 
covering nine lines of fine type in the edition, and ending with this: 

(§ 18, end!) vandntare [cf. So] nihsidhvasam uccaih Siro vahan ra@jatvam 
anubhavann dste. api ca. 
(vs 4:) ekakini vanavasiny arajalaksmany anitisastrajfie 
sattvocchrite mrgapatiu rajeti girah parinamanti. 
After. this T proceeds with § 23, agreeing with the others. 

Pirnabhadra, in this entire passage, agrees almost precisely with T, 
with only very minor verbal variants of no interest, and in exactly the 
same order. But at the end, after vs 4, Pn adds our vs 5 (Pn’s vs 6), 
which, as proved by the other versions, belonged in the original immedi- 
ately after our vs 4, to be sure,—but both verses belonged at an earlier 
point. In vs 5 (Pn 6) Pn agrees literatim with the text as printed above 
from SP, N, H. 

Simplicior also points to the same archetype with T, but is fragmentary. 
It begins like T: 

(§ 18, beginning) atha [kadacit, to § 19] pifigalako nama sinhah sar- 
vamrgaparivrtah— ) 
($19) pipasakula udakagrahanartharh yamunatatam avatirnah. 
(§ 20) sarhjivakasya gambhiratarain sabdain dtirad evasrnot. 
(§ 21) taza ca Srutvativavyakulahrdayah sasadhvasam akaram prachadya 
vatavrksatale caturmandalavasthanenavasthitah. 
‘ 


Of § 22, however, Spl has only the first sentence (practically as in T), 
naming the four mandalas, but not undertaking the explanation of the 
names found in T and Pn. Spl also lacks the long description of the 
lion’s rule and likewise the following, transposed part of T, Pn, which 
reproduces the last part of the original $18 and the two verses! Spl, in 
short, after the first sentence of § 22, proceeds immediately with § 23, 
agreeing thenceforth with all the other versions. Evidently Spl has 
shortened its immediate archetype, the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, here; for the 
last part of §18, and at least vs 4, must have been found in Ur-T, be- 
longing as they do to the original Paficatantra and being found in our 
T (tho transposed in order). It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that 
Spl also has omitted the expanded portion of T, Pn, which occurs pre- 
cisely at the same spot. In other words, it seems at least very likely that 
the whole expansion of T and Pn goes back to the Ur-Tantrakhydyika. 

Ksemendra has an abbreviated version, which however probably points _ 
to an arrangement of the materials like that of T, Pn (see especially the 
readings of Ks quoted in my Critical Apparatus under §§ 18, 19). But 
Ks contains no trace of the expansion noted in T, Pn. 

What conclusions are to be drawn from this passage? First, T and Pn 
have probably expanded the text, and this expansion probably goes back 

6* 


84 Chapter 1V: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


to Ur-T,, as indicated by Spl. Secondly—and whether the other conclusion 
is true or not—T and Pn have certainly deranged the order of the ma- 
terials; and this derangement seems to be implied also in the fragmentary 
versions of Spl and Ks. 

Namely: the last part of the original § 18, and the two verses (one 
verse only in T, which omits vs 5) immediately following it, are trans- 
posed to a position after § 22 (and after the expansion thereof found in 
T, Pn only). That the two parts of §18 belong together, and that the 
two verses belong immediately thereafter, is shown by the agreement of 
the other versions, all of which have them in this place if at all (SP, N, 
and H omit vs 4, and Pa either omits vs 5 or fuses it with vs 4). That 
the passage of T, Pn which I identify with the end of §18 really re- 
presents that part of the original is shown by the close verbai corre- 
spondence (note particularly the verbal expression anubhavann aste at 
the end, in T as well as SP, H [Pn anubabhiiva]). The originality of the 
order of SP &c. is also proved by the greatly superior sense. ‘The de- 
scription of the lion’s rule should evidently precede, not interrupt, the 
description of his action on hearing Satnjivaka’s roar. 

In passing we may note a particularly clear verbal correspondence 
inherited from the original in SP, H, So, and Pa, and not found at all 
in 'T', Jn: in § 20 the bull’s roar is described as ananubhtitaptirvam (by 
the lion) in SP, ananubhtitam or °ta-ptrvakam in H, asrutaptirvam in 
Somadeva; and in Sy we read “weil sie noch nie einen Stier gesehen, 
noch seine Stimme gehért hatten.” Neither T nor Spl nor Pn has any 
such expression. Presumably the word was omitted in Ur-T. 

Note also the very close literal correspondence thruout between T 
and Spl—pointing to the secondary archetype Ur-T. 

2. Reconstruction I $$ 29, 30.—Here the Ur-T apparently had a 
duplication, which remains in our 'T, while Spl (followed by Pn) made 
an attempt to gloss it over. Again the sense, as well as the agreement 
of the other versions, proves 'T-Spl-Pn secondary. 

The passage occurs in Story I. 1, Ape and Wedge. Exact references 
to the several versions may be got from my Critical Apparatus. I quote 
first Ti(p.F 1 15)s 


(cf. § 80) akasm&e cainusafigikath devagrhe vanarayitham agatam. 

(§ 29) atha tatraikasya Silpino ’rdhasphotitakasthastambho (8 °patitah 
<a°) "rjunamayah khadirakilakena madhye yantranikhatenavastabdho 
’vatisthate. 

(§ 80) tatra kadacid vanarayitho girisikharad avatirya svecchaya taru- 
Sikharaprasadasrigadarunicayesu prakriditum drabdhah. 


These three bits of text, which are found consecutively in T, may be 
translated thus: “And a herd of apes, tagging along for no particular 
reason, came to the temple. Now there was a beam of arjuna-wood, which 
one of the workmen had partly split, and which had been left held apart 
by a wedge of khadira-wood driven into it by a mechanical device. Now 
it happened once that a herd of apes came down there from a mountain- 


Pe ei ; ; e 
Secondary correspondences between Tantrakhyayika and Jain versions 85 


top and began to play about at random in the tree-tops, the turrets of 
the building, and the piles of wood.” 

Is it not sufficiently clear that the first and third sentences duplicate 
each other—or, to put it in another way, that the third sentence begins 
in a way which implies that the apes had not been mentioned before? 
If the apes had already “come to the temple,” why later speak of them 
as “coming down from the mountain-top,” and why “once upon a time”’ 
(kadacit), when the time had already been definitely specified as the parti- 
cular hour when the carpenters went away to dinner on this particular day? 

This inconsistency was notist by Spl (which Pn follows closely thruout 
this passage). It reproduces the first two sentences almost verbally as in T: 
atha kadacit tatranusangikain vanaraytitham itas cetas ca paribhramad 

agatam.—tatraikasya kasyacie chilpino ’rdhasphatito ‘fijanavrksadaru- 

mayah stambhah khadirakilakena madhyanihitena tisthati. 
But the third sentence is changed by Spl thus, by omitting the bother- 
some words kadacid and girisikharad avatirya: 
atrantare vanaras tarusikharaprasadasrigadaruparyantesu yathecchaya 
kriditum arabdhah.—“At this juncture (no longer ‘once upon a time’!) 

the apes started to play at random among the tree-tops”’ &c. 

The other versions, however—SP, H, So, and Ks (Pa is very confused 
in the order here, but at any rate does not in the least support T, Spl) 
—agree in the order of our reconstruction: (1) Temple is being built; 
(2) Carpenters leave the place; (8) One of them leaves the half-split piece 
of wood held apart by a wedge; (4) Herd of apes arrives; (5) One of the 
apes takes hold of wedge, &c. In all the other Sanskrit versions the apes 
are first mentioned in our § 30, after our § 29 which speaks of the wedge 
left by the carpenter. T agrees with them in having § 30 in the right place, 
but stupidly inserts an anticipation of it before § 29, thus interrupting 
the thread of the story and making its version internally inconsistent, or 
at least very harsh. Spl removes the internal inconsistency, but leaves 
the interruption of the thread of the story; its version is still abrupt, 
passing from the carpentry-work to the apes and back again, instead of 
waiting for the logical place to introduce the apes. 

Note again the close verbal relations between T and Spl, pointing to 
the secondary archetype Ur-T. 

3. Reconstruction III vs 99.—Here again T and Spl agree on a reading 
which is shown by the agreement of SP, N, Pa, and Pn to be secondary. 
Pn apparently drew his reading for the verse from his third source, not 
from either 'T or Spl (cf. page 37). The Ur-T, source of 'T and Spl, may 
be presumed to have had the secondary reading on which these two 
versions agree. 

The verse, as I reconstruct the original, reads: 

rnasesam agnisesain vyadhisesain tathaiva ca 

arigesarn ca nihsesarh krtva prajfio na sidati. 
“A remnant of debt, of fire, of disease likewise, and of a foe should be 
blotted out without remnant by a wise man if he would avoid disaster.” 


86 Chapter LV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


The first half verse is identical in all the Sanskrit versions where it 
occurs (T, SP, N, Spl, Pn) except that SP and Spl read cagnisesaih in a, 
and 'T', Spl, and Pn read Satrusesain (synonym of ari°) for vyadhi® in b. 
In ed SP, N, and Pn read alike except that Pn has vyadhisesatn for ari®, 
thus restoring the sense of the original in its entirety, merely exchanging 
satru? (= ari°) with vyadhi°; and N reads rajan for prajiio. But Tand Spl have 
a quite different second half, which results in a total elimination of vyadhi?°: 


punah-punah pravarteta tasmaec chesarh na karayet. 


J 


(Spl pravardhante, and dharayet.) The Pahlavi undoubtedly agreed with 
SP, N, Pnin mentioning all four things—debt, fire, disease, and enemy; 
and the original Paficatantra is thereby proved to have read thus. The 
Arabie preserves the complete sense of the Pahlavi; its versions mention 
all four things (except that some of them, as JCap and KF, say corruptly 
“other things” instead of “debt”). The Old Syriac has only three things, 
viz. debt, enemy, and a corrupt word which Bickell emended to a word 
meaning “ disease”’. Schulthess, being misled by Hertel into supposing 
that the original must have agreed with T in having’no mention of 
‘‘ disease,” emended to a word meaning “fire,” which is paleographically 
more remote from the ms. reading than Bickell’s suggestion. I think there is 
little doubt, that Bickell was right. But be that as it may, the Arabic proves 
beyond peradventure that the Pahlavi had both “disease,” and “fire.” 

Unless T and Spl got their secondary readings independently from 
a version of the stanza known to the redactors of both as a “ gefliigeltes 
Wort ”’—a possibility which cannot be entirely ignored--we should have 
in this stanza another proof of a secondary reading in the Ur-T’, inherited 
in both T and Spl. 


4. Reconstruction III § 54.—In the story of the Elephant, Hares, and 
Moon, after the herd of elephants has wrought havoe among the hares, 
the hares that are left alive assemble for consultation (T, hatasesah sasah 
sanpradharayitum arabdhah). Then, according to all Sanskrit versions 
except T, Spl, and Pn (namely, SP, H, So; Ks is so abbreviated that it 
hardly gives evidence either way, but at least it is not inconsistent with 
SP &e.) the hare-king, named Silimukha, lays before the assembly the 
problem confronting them and asks for suggestions. This is good niti 
practice; compare the like situation in Reconstruction II § 7 ff., where 
the crow-king acts similarly after the crows have been worsted by the 
owls. The Pahlavi versions differ only in that the statement of the dis- 
aster that has befallen the hare-community is put into the mouths of the 
general assembly of hares, who appeal to their king for help; whereupon 
(according to the Arabic) the hare-king orders the wisest hares to consult 
him on the subject. 

But in T, Spl, and Pn the hare-king is not mentioned at this point 
at all. The hares assemble and express, apparently to each other, the 
thots attributed to the king in the other versions. In the next section, 
III § 55, Spl has a wholly individual variation, but the other versions 
all agree essentially in making the clever hare Vijaya offer his services. 


Secondary correspondences between Tantrakhyayika and Jain versions 87 


Only after this, in § 56, do we find T (followed by Pn) introducing the 
hare-king (Silimukho nama sasarajo &c.; note the language, which clearly 
implies that he is mentioned for the first time), who now (as in the other 
versions) accepts Vijaya’s offer. It seems clear, both because of the 
agreement of the other versions and on grounds of general probability, 
that the Ur-T and its descendants, T, Spl, Pn, are secondary in not 
mentioning the hare-king at the opening of the assembly. In spite of the 
presence of the king (as shown by § 56), the descendants of Ur-T represent 
the assembly as being opened, and the call for the general suggestions 
made, by the ignobile vulgus, which is surely not good niti. 

The verbal correspondences between the versions in this passage are 
not very close, tho the sense is the same but for the point mentioned. The 
readings of all the versions will be found in my Critical Apparatus ad loc. 

5. Reconstruction ILL §§ 71, 72.—In the same story, Elephant, Hares, 
and Moon, after the clever hare has frightened the elephant-king with his 
bluff about the moon’s anger, the elephant humbly expresses his regret 
and promises to do better in the future. But the hare, wishing to impress 
him (or to exercize his own cleverness) still further, tells him he should 
go and visit the moon and apologize in person. The elephant consenting, 
the hare takes him by night to the clear lake, in which the moon’s image 
is reflected in the water, and when the elephant makes obeisance with 
his trunk, attributes the ripples caused thereby on the reflected face of 
the moon in the water to the moon’s displeasure at being disturbed. 

So, essentially, all versions—except that in T’, Spl, and Pn the suggestion 
of the visit to the moon is made by the elephant, not by the hare. In T 
the elephant says, § 71: tat pradarsaya [most mss. pradesaya] panthanam, 
kva tath pasyeyam iti. In Spl he says: atha kva vartate bhagavan svami 
candrah; and two lines below again: yady evain tad darsaya me tain svami- 
nah yena pranamyanyatra gacchamah. Pn has a sort of combination of 
T and Spl, not very close to either. 

The agreement of all the other versions is enuf to establish the original 
Paficatantra. Their reading is, moreover, a more natural one. The hare 
has planned in advance the trip to the lake, where he intends to show 
the moon’s image to the elephant. It is therefore more plausible that he, 
not the elephant, should suggest the visit to the moon. 

The readings of the several versions are again not very close to each 
other, tho the sense is much the same in all, except for this one point. 

6. Reconstruction IL § 253.—Upon seeing the tortoise carried off by 
the hunter, according to SP: 
tato mrgamusakavayasah (« adds paramodvegavantah) kimnkartavyata- 

mudha rudantas tam anuyayuh.hiranyakah (« °ka aha): kin rudyate. 
Similarly H, except that it has no phrase like kitn rudyate. Pa is closely 
similar to H; Sy reads: 

Als ihre Genossen das sahen, wurden sie bekiimmert, und die Maus sprach. 


Ar: The gazelle, the crow, and the mouse assembled... At this their grief 
became oppressive, and the mouse said. 


88 Chapter [V: Secondary interrelationships of various versions 


The Br versions are so abbreviated that they can hardly be used as 
evidence, but at least Ks speaks of all the companions of the tortoise 
(te ca jagmur &e.). 

The Ur-T, however, apparently mentioned only the mouse.- T reads: 
tada niyamanai drstva hiranyah param visadam agamat, aha ca. 
Similarly both Spl and Pn. Apparently the secondary change in Ur-T, 
by which only the mouse js mentioned, without the deer and the crow, 
was due to the fact that the following speech was put into the mouth of 
the mouse alone. All versions which have the speech at all (the Br versions 

omit it) agree on this. 

7. Minor and miscellaneous agreements of T and Spl.—The above 
inay serve as samples of the secondary connexions between T and the 
Jain versions. Attentive students of my Critical Apparatus will note many 
other verbal correspondences, large and small, between T and Spl (not 
to mention Pn, which as we have seen used both of these texts). Let it 
be clearly understood that I do not think it possible definitely to prove 
any such relations by half a dozen instauces, even as striking as those 
which I have quoted. Conclusive proof can only be furnisht by a much 
larger collection of examples, which considerations of space forbid my 
furnishing here. They can easily be found by those who wish to find them 
in my Critical Apparatus. They include even agreements in the smallest 
details of language, as for instance I § 3, where T, Spl, Pn, and Ks read 
daksinatye janapade (Pn °yesu °padesu), but SP and H daksinapathe, 
which is shown by the Arabic DSTB’ (with variants, abundantly pointing 
to a Skt. word ending in -patha) to be the original Paficatantra reading. 
Or again 1§4, where SP and Pn (Pn evidently following his third source, 
independent of T and Spl) read sarthavahah prativasati sma (H vanik, 
v. l. adds mahadhano, prativasati [Hm and y. 1. of Hp nivasati]), while T 
and Spl read sresthiputro (Spl vanikputro) babhtiva. The independent 
agreement of SP and Pn determines the original Paficatantra; T and Spl 
apparently inherit a secondary reading from Ur-T. Or, to add one last 
example from a verse, I vs 173: 

pita va yadi va bhrata putro va yadi va suhrt 

pranadrohakara rajfia hantavya bhutim icchata. 
With certain variants in the second half verse we are not now concerned. 
The first half verse is read exactly as here printed in SP, N, H, and Pn, 
thus establishing the original Paficatantra, since Pn is independent of 
SP &c. T and Spl read thus in the first pada, but in the second they 
read bharya putro (Spl transposing, putro bharya) ’thava suhrt. Of course, 
the agreement between 'T’ and Spl here, in the case of a verse, might be 
due to the fact that the verse was otherwise known in this form, as a 
floating proverbial stanza. But the numerous similar agreements between 
the same two versions make it seem more likely that they inherited this 
form of the verse from their common secondary archetype. 


CHAPTER V 


CRITIQUE OF HERTEL’S VIEWS OF INTER- 
RELATIONSHIP OF VERSIONS 


General remarks on Hertel’s views of the Paficatantra versions. 
—With the exceptions noted in my last chapter, I believe 
that all the Pafcatantra versions dealt with in my study are 
independent of each other. That is, they are related only thru 
the original Pancatantra; they are not offshoots, in whole or 
in part, of any secondary archetypes. As has already been 
intimated several times, I find myself differing very markedly 
in this respect from Professor Johannes Hertel. Since he has 
in the past devoted more labor than any other man to studying 
this subject; since his opinions very naturally and_ properly 
command wide-spread attention; and since they are accepted 
by many as proved facts, it seems necessary to devote a special 
chapter to showing the extent to which I think them erroneous, 
and the reasons for this opinion. In doing this I shall have to 
repeat to a considerable extent my previously publisht study 
of Hertel’s views (American Journal of Philology, 36. 253 ff. ; 
year 1915). In the matters covered by that study I shall try 
to summarize as much as possible, referring to that place for 
a fuller statement. 

It will, I trust, be understood that I am actuated by no 
desire to detract from the value of Hertel’s work, or by any 
other personal considerations. I recognize gratefully the great 
debt which I owe to Hertel, and not only I, but all students 
of the Paneatantra, for his laborious editions and translations. 
I regret the necessity of differing from him so radically, even on 
purely impersonal and scientific questions. But such differences 
of opinion as I have must be stated sharply and detinitely, all 
the more because of the striking assurance with which Hertel 
states his views. He admits not the slightest question of any 
part of his genealogical table of Pancatantra versions. He 
regards every part of it as absolutely and irrefutably proved, 


90 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


and draws sweeping and important conclusions from it, using all 
parts of it as establisht facts in demolishing his critics. There 
are, indeed, some parts of it which are sound and indisputable. 
But there are other parts which seem to me to rest on purely 
subjective interpretations and over-hasty generalizations from 
afew more than doubtful cases. It is necessary to separate the 
false from the true. And to do so is a surprisingly easy task, in 
my opinion. When carefully analyzed, there is amazingly little 
sound evidence for several of Hertel’s allegations—considering 
the comparative certainty of some of his other conclusions. 
Points in Hertel’s genealogical table of versions which this 
chapter will try to disprove.—I shall now undertake to show 
the unsoundness of four points in Hertel’s Pancatantra genealogy, 
namely: I. The supposed lost version ‘“‘t,”’ archetype of all 
existing versions, but containing certain definite corruptions. 
II. The supposed archetype “KX,” from which Hertel thinks 
all versions except Tantrakhyayika are descended. III. The 
supposed archetype ‘“‘N-W,” from which he thinks Pahlavi, the 
Ur-SP (and its relatives), and Simplicior are descended. All these 
three supposed archetypes are, I think, mythical.1 1V. Hertel 


’ Of minor importance is another supposedly lost archetype, which Hertel 
calls “n-w',” and which I think is also imaginary. He says (Pajic., p. 432): 
‘““Zwischen n-w [by which he means what I call “ Ur-SP,” the common 
archetype of SP, N, and H] und SP liegt eine, ganz bestimmte Mingel 
(Korruptelen und Liicken) aufweisende Hs. n-w'; diese Mingel sind nach 
reichem hs. Material in der Einleitung zu meiner Ausgabe des SP S. XXX VI— 
XLII und 8. XLVI—LI festgestellt.” A careful study of the pages referred 
to reveals not the slightest sign of any evidence that supports this statement. 
I find there a discussion of a series of supposed corruptions in all SP manu- 
scripts. Aside from the fact that many of the cases are more than doubtful, 
not one of them, even if we granted Hertel’s contentions, would prove the 
existence of the intermediate archetype ‘“n-w!” between “n-w” (= Ur-SP) 
and SP itself. And that for two reasons. 1. In most of the cases the Nepalese 
version agrees with the best mss. of SP, which fact Hertel overlooks. Con- 
sequently, if there really was a “corruption,” it must according to Hertel’s 
own theories go back to his “‘n-w,” and cannot have been introduced be- 
tween “n-w” and the SP. 2. In the remaining cases there is nothing whatever 
to show that the corruptions, or changes, were not introduced in the SP 
itself, that is in. the manuscript of the original redactor of SP. There is no 
need to assume any older archetype such as the imaginary “ n-w'!.”—Since 
this point is of very minor importance, I merely note it here in passing 
and shall not refer to it again. 


Hertel’s proofs insufficient in quantity o1 


believes that the % subrecension of Tantrakhyayika was inter- 
polated from an outside version—an offshoot of his supposed 
archetype ‘‘ IX ’’—and that Ts is the only pure representative 
of the Tantrakhyayika tradition. I believe that if anything the 
reverse is the case; that is, that Tf is on the whole a rather 
fuller and better representative of the Tantrakhyayika tradition 
than Ta; and that neither one shows any signs of interpolation 
from any other version of the Pancatantra. 





Hertel’s proofs are insufficient in quantity even if they were 
individually sound.—I shall try to show that the arguments 
which Hertel advances for his “t,” “IK,” and ‘* N-W” arche- 
types are individually inconclusive. It seems to me, however, 
that they are open to this more general criticism: the number 
of instances he adduces is too small to prove anything. He has 
produced about half a dozen eases of alleged common corrup- 
tions to support his archetype ‘“t,” about ten for “ K,” and 
only two for ‘‘N-W.” Even if it were true (as it is not) that 
in these few instances identical corruptions have occurred in 
the versions as assumed by Hertel, it is quite possible to 
believe that these few changes crept in independently in the 
versions which show them. They need not go back to common 
archetypes containing these ‘ corruptions.” Hindu literary 
tradition is too complicated to be settled thus lightly. In no 
work of the size of the Pancatantra could interrelationship of 
the versions be determined by any half-dozen or dozen 
agreements or disagreements, however striking; and Hertel’s 
are for the most part not striking at all, but infinitesimal 
(concerning petty changes of a syllable or two in individual 
words). By such agreements the close connexion of any two 
different subrecensions of any Hindu work could be proved. I 
illustrated this in my article AJP. 36. 275 ff. (for other illustra- 
tions of inconclusive agreements see my Critical Apparatus 
passim, and especially Chapter VI, end, of this introduction). I 
pointed out there that by just such reasoning as Hertel uses 
one could prove that Tz and SP« go back to a common arche- 
type different from SP and Tf; or that T and the Nepalese 
Paicatantra are more closely related than SP and the Nepalese; 
or any other conceivable absurdity. Since it is obvious to 
anyone who has ever lookt at the versions that such conclusions 


92 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


would be unwarranted, I think it is thereby indicated that 
Hertel’s methods are unsafe. This is their reductio ad absurdum. 
Real genetic relationship must rest on much broader conside- 
rations than this: on sweeping and extensive changes in the 
original plan of the work as a whole, or on extensive and 
far-reaching verbal agreements (including a very large number 
of common corruptions or changes in detail). On such broad 
and sound considerations Hertel bases his conclusions regarding 
the relationships of SP, N, and H, for instance. (See e. g. his 
Pac. p. 432 ff. Note the contrast between the unmistakable 
cogency and effectiveness of the evidence there produced, and 
that which I am about to quote regarding ‘‘t,’” “K,” and 
“N-W.”) But nothing even remotely resembling that sort of 
evidence has yet been produced by Hertel in support of the 
conclusions with which we are now dealing. The reason for 
this omission is indicated in the next paragraph: such evidence 
does not exist. 

These theories are not only unproved but unprovable.—lIt 
should be distinctly understood that my disbelief in these theories 
of Hertel’s is not based solely on the insufficiency of the 
evidence which he has advanst in support of them. I have 
kept them constantly in mind in working thru the versions 
myself, and have carefully searcht for signs of their correct- 
ness; and in vain. While, therefore, this chapter will naturally 
contain, for the most part, merely rebuttal of Hertel’s alleged 
evidence, it must not be supposed that that is the whole story. 
An unbiast study of the entire Pancatantra in all its older 
versions has convinst me that these theories are not only 
unproved, but unprovable. Everything points against them. 
Final conviction of this fact can only come from a survey of 
all the evidence, which is gathered in my Critical Apparatus. 
I think that anyone who, with open mind, studies that evidence, 
ean hardly fail to agree with me. 


I. The supposed archetype * t.”’ 


What is meant by this “t”’ ?—According to Hertel, he has 
proved “in fiir jeden Philologen einwandfreier Weise ” (Paiic. 
p. 443) that all existing versions of the Pafecatantra go back 
to an archetype which showed: certain definite corruptions. 


The supposed archetype “t” 93 


Incidentally, he emends all these passages in his edition of 
Tantrakhyayika, making it read as he thinks the original 
Paneatantra did, altho according to his own theory the Tantra- 
khyayika must have had and retained these ‘ corruptions ” in 
his text. But let that pass. Hertel quotes (Tantrakhyayika, 
Kinleitung, p. 34 ff.) just seven cases in which he thinks 
corruptions of this ‘“ archetype t” can be found. They mostly 
concern very minor points—changes of one or two letters in 
a single word. In my opinion it is utterly unsound to base 
such sweeping conclusions on so little evidence, even if the 
points were individually reliable. But they are far from that. 
Let us consider the seven cases seriatim. 


1. pratyayito, T “A 149;° Reconstruction II § 62.—After the long 
conversation in which the crow sues for the friendship of the mouse, at 
last the mouse yields. The versions (see exact references in my Critical 
Apparatus) read: 


T tae chrutva hiranyo ’bravit: pratyarthito (so mss.) “hath bhavata.tatha 
nama, 

SP hiranyakah: pratyayito *harn bhavata; bhavatu bhavadabhimatam. 

H._ hiranyako bahir nihsrtyaha: apyayito “ham bhavatanena vacanamrtena. 
(After insertion:) tad bhavatu bhavato ’bhimatam (H Mii. adds eva). 

Spl has a wholly different passage, reflected also in Pn, which however 
adds at the end of it: abravit: bhadra, pratyayito “har bhavata. 

So cf. perhaps 76b krtvasvasarh ca tena sah. 

Ks (abbreviated equivalent of a much longer passage that includes this) 
sakhyam yatnena vidadhe tena visrabdham (Mank. ms. te sa-, em. to 
nitva, visrambham) akhuna. 

Sy Die Maus sprach: Ich will dich in Freundschaft annehmen, denn ich 
habe noch nie eine Bitte enttiiuscht. 

Ar (Cheikho) The mouse said: I accept your friendship, for never in any 
case have I withheld one in need from his necessity. 


The reading of the T mss. would mean “I have been challenged (or, 
opposed) by your worship.” It contains the word pratyarthito, which 
Hertel emends to pratydyito, “I have been made confident (or, my trust 
has been won; or, possibly, I have been convinst, persuaded) by your 
worship.” That the original Paficatantra read pratydayito here seems clear 
to me also. Both SP and Pn have the correct reading pratydyito, which 
to my way of thinking is good evidence in itself. But since Hertel cannot 
allow any other version to have a more original reading than 'l'antra- 
khyayika, he must needs show that their readings are “ fortunate correc- 
tions” of a corruption found in their archetypes. How does he do this? 

As for Pirnabhadra, he simply asserts it, without a shadow even of an 
attempt to prove it. And this is “ proof by strictest philological method!” 


94 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


As for SP, his proof is most curious. Hitopadesa, the nearest relative 
of SP, has (as quoted above) dpydyito. This word “kommt in seinen 
Schriftziigen den anderen Lesarten so nahe, dafS& man wird annehmen 
miissen, es sei aus einer Korruptel hervorgegangen, die Narayana [the 
author of Hit.] konjekturell besserte.” (Tantr. Ein]. p. 35.) Because Hito- 
padesa has a secondary reading that comes fairly close to the original 
one, therefore its relative, SP, which has the original reading, must go 
back to an archetype which had a secondary one!! It seems to me that 
comment is hardly necessary on such argumentation.. 

Coming now to Pahlavi: Hertel assumes that it contains in the phrase 
“for I have never disappointed anyone’s desire” (or the like), the equi- 
valent of a Sanskrit word prarthito, instead of pratyayito. He then argues 
that Pa either had pratyarthito (as in T) in its Sanskrit archetype, and 
mistranslated it as if it were prarthito, or else that its Sanskrit archetype 
actually read prarthito, which is very close, at least, to pratyarthito. Thus 
he seeks to show that Pa also goes back to a corrupt substitute for 
pratyaynto. 

Now, it is dangerous to argue so confidently about Pahlavi’s rendering 
of a single, more or less vague word. I would suggest that the following 
interpretation of Pahlavi’s reading is at least as likely to be right as 
Hertel’s. Pahlavi (as quoted above) begins the speech of the mouse with 
the words “I accept your friendship.” This is a reasonably close para- 
phrase of pratydyito “ham bhavata, “You have won my confidence,” or more 
literally “I have been made trustful by you.” The following expression 
of Pahlavi, “for I haye never disappointed anyone’s desire,’ may also pass 
for a slight distortion of the following phrase of SP and H, (tad) bhavaiu 
bhavadabhimatam, “ (so) let what you desire be fulfilled.” This is no more 
of a departure from the original than constantly occurs in Pa. Pa general- 
izes the particular statement of the original; but the word “ desire” or 
“need,” found persistently in all the Pa versions, may be more reasonably 
equated with the Sanskrit abhimatam, actually found in SP and H, than 
with the imaginary *prarthito, not found in any Sanskrit version. 

Were it not for Hertel’s unwillingness to recognize the possibility that 
any other version may preserve the original as against a corruption in T, 
I am confident that he would never have been led into such argumentation 
as the above. To me, at least, it seems very clear that (1) prdtydyito, the 
correct reading, was inherited directly from the original Paficatantra into 
the Ur-SP, into the archetype which Pn used here, and probably into the 
archetype of Pa; (2) H by a slight secondary corruption changed it into 
dpydyito, with consequent further slight additions to the sentence; (3) T 
(at least our manuscripts of it) by a somewhat more markt change sub- 
stituted pratyarthito for it.—It is highly likely, too, that (4) So and Ks 
point to an archetype containing the correct pratydyito (see their readings 
quoted above). 

For a fuller discussion of this passage see my article, AJP. 36. 257 ff. 

2. The verse T II. 87; Reconstruction II ys 53.—This vs oceurs only 
in 'T, SP, N, and Pn. Therefore, like the preceding case (in which Hertel 


Archetype “t”: the verse T II. 87; Reconstruction II vs 53 be 


quite ignores the Br versions), it would prove nothing as to an archetype 
of all the versions, even if Hertel were right about it. At most it could 
only prove something about a common archetype of TT, SP (N), and Pn. 
But it proves nothing of the sort. The verse reads, in my reconstruction: 


tasya krte budhah ko nw kuryat karma vigarhitam 
yasya “nubandhah papiyan adhonistho vipadyate. 


The italicized words are not certain. Variants: a, Pn tasyah krte; p 
tasyarthe ko nu vibudhah; SP ed. krti kas ca (« tatha krte or tatkrteva) 
bu° ko ’tra; N also ’tra for nu, otherwise as text. b, N vigarhanam. ec, Pn 
(and 'T ed. by em.) ’nwbandhat (T mss. as text). Pn pdpisthim, SP sar- 
rarthah, SP« pararthah, N pararthyah. d, Pn naro nistham prapad®; SP, N 
sa evaikah krtt puman (N sudhth). 

The variations are, it will be noted, more extensive than usual. In 
addition to those mentioned, T transposes the two half-stanzas, putting 
our ed before ab. Hertel says on this subject: “ Da aber im Sanskrit der 
Relativsatz gewdhnlich vorausgeht, so ist Sar. [7. e. I] in diesem Punkte 
sicher urspriinglich.” The italics are mine; they call attention to the value 
of the word “sicher” in Hertel’s vocabulary. On the contrary, the very 
fact that the relative clause usually precedes makes it easy to see how 
a verse originally composed with the relative clause following might 
naturally be changed, in a secondary version, to the more normal order. 
The principle of the lectio facilior is familiar enuf. It is not so easy to 
conceive a later version (or, as I believe, two independent versions, SP 
and Pn) changing from the usual to the unusual order. 

As to the variations in the words of the stanza: the first half verse 
is establisht by the agreement of Pn with the unrelated N (Pn merely 
has tasyah for tasya, misinterpreting the word as referring to the word 
setika in the preceding vs, and N changes vigarhitam to vigarhanam). In 
the second half verse the versions all vary more or less; but the reading 
of ‘T’ (mss.) makes good sense. Hertel’s emendation anubandhat is not 
called for; SP and N agree with the reading of the 'T mss. and this is 
quite correct. The word means “ consequence,” not either “Anhang” or 
“Absicht.” The noun to be supplied with tasya and+yasya (none of the 
versions express it) is something like “body” or “life,” as is shown by 
the preceding context. The verse means: “ What wise man, pray, would 
perform a repulsive action for the sake of that, the consequence of 
which is evil and comes to naught when it gets to the lower world [after 
death] ?” | 

There is, then, no reason to question the correctness of ‘T’s reading in 
pada e (T’s a). But even if Hertel were right in thinking that anubandhat 
must be read for anubandhah, it would not prove that the archetype of 
all versions was corrupt, nor even the archetype of T, SP, and Pn, which 
alone have this vs. For Pn has the reading which Hertel believes to have 
been original. He must have got it from somewhere. It remains for Hertel 
to prove that he “restored” an original reading “ happily,” after finding 
a corrupt reading in his archetype. : 


’ 


96 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


From the fact that Spl and Pa do not contain this verse Hertel strangely 
concludes that it was corrupt in their archetypes. But both Spl and Pa 
omit a great many verses of the original. They furnish absolutely no 
basis for such an inference. 


3. bhojanam, T p. 60, 1. 9; Reconstruction I § 570.—In the story of 
the Iron-eating Mice (I. 15) a rich merchant cheats his poor friend of some 
iron which had been left on deposit, telling the owner that the mice had 
eaten it. The owner pretends to believe it. The lying merchant’s further 
course is described in T thus: 
asaiv api suparihrstahrdayah (8 paritusta°) padyadipurahsaraiin tasya 

puja kartum arabdhayan bhojanam ca prarthitavan. 


The Syriac has: Jener aber freute sich, da ihm der Kaufmann Glauben 
schenkte. Und nachdem er ihn eingeladen, an dem Tage in seinem Hause 
zu speisen,—&c. (Arabic similarly.) 

Nothing remotely resembling the last clause is found in any other 
version except Somadeva, which reads: prarthayam asa ca tato vanijo 
‘smat sa bhojanam, so ’pi samntusya tat tasmai pradatuin pratyapadyata. 

The words which concern us are bhojanam ca prarthitavan in the 
TVantrakhyayika. Taken in the most natural sense, they would seem to 
mean (as Hertel rightly says) ‘and [the rich man] askt [the poor man] 
for food.” Of course this is nonsense; this cannot be what the passage 
was intended to mean. It seems impossible to assume a change of subject; 
unless a word has fallen out, the subject of prarthitavan must be the same 
as that of the immediately preceding drabdhavdn, namely, the rich man. 
But if the rich man is the subject, then the meaning must obviously be 
“and invited him to a meal.” And this is exactly what the Pahlavi has! 

So far lam in agreement with Hertel; it is scarcely conceivabie that 
the Tantrakhyayika intends any other meaning than that which the 
Pahlavi has. Now, says Hertel, we must then understand prdrthay in the 
sense of nimantray, [“ ask” =] “invite,” a sense in which it seems to be 
otherwise unrecorded, but which to English-speaking persons will not 
seem a violent change of meaning, in view of the fact that our verb 
“ask” is so used. I think Hertel is right in this too. But when Hertel 
proceeds to assert that we must emend bhojanam to bhojane, because 
—nimantray “invite” is regularly construed with the locative, I cannot 
follow him. We are assuming a hitherto unknown meaning for the verb 
prarthay; how can we know what its construction would be? Is it not 
a priort quite conceivable that the accusative of the goal should be used 
after a verb of summoning or inviting? You invite a person to a meal. 
Hertel seems to me to strain at a gnat after swallowing a camel; it is 
really much more of an act of faith to accept the meaning he assumes 
for prarthay than to allow the use of the accusative after it. 

The exceptional sense in which prarthay is used here (if Hertel is right) 
may be assumed to be the reason for Somadeya’s rewriting of the passage 
in such a way as to make the poor man really “ask” (= beg, bitten) 
the rfch man for food (bhojanam; note the accusative in Somadeya!). This 


Archetype ‘‘t”: The tree-oracle, I § 547 97 


cannot be original if the Pahlavi is original; and, as 1 have indicated, 
it seems clear to me (as to Hertel) that Tantrakhyayika supports Pahlavi. 

I therefore agree with Hertel as to the interpretation of this passage, 
but not as to the necessity for emendation of the Tantrakhyayika manu- 
scripts. But even if he were right on that point; even if we had to assume 
that the Ur-Paficatantra read bhojane; what right has Hertel to assume 
that the Pahlavi goes back to a corrupt archetype? The Pahlavi has 
exactly the meaning which Hertel says the original must have had. What 
possible ground is there for asserting that this correct meaning rests on 
a “gliickliche Besserung,” rather than on an inheritance of the correct 
reading from the Ur-Paficatantra directly? Hertel states none whatever. 
Of course there is none—unless you regard as already proved the very 
proposition which Hertel is trying to prove. In short, Hertel argues in 
a perfect circle without realizing it. One is again constrained to assume 
that Hertel would not have hit upon this curious view that Pahlavi must 
go back to a corruption that had been changed back again to the original 
reading, were it not for his desire to show that all texts of the Paficatantra 
must be at least as corrupt as T in every case. Since he believes (wrongly, 
in my opinion) that T is here corrupt, therefore Pa must rest on a 
“ oliickliche Besserung;” otherwise we should have Pa preserving the 
original better than T, and that would never do! 

4, The tree-oracle, T p. 57, 1. 15 ff.; Reconstruction I § 547.—This 
concerns the emendation—clever and plausible enuf—which Hertel makes 
in 'l’s text of Dharmabuddhi’s speech after the fake oracle has declared 
him guilty of theft. On this passage see my Critical Apparatus ad loc. 
Whatever the true text of Tantrakhyayika may have been at this point, it 
seems to me that there is no reason whatever for assuming its originality 
as against the agreement of the other versions. On the contrary, 'I’s version 
sounds very bizarre and badly constructed. Hertel’s only argument in its 
favor seems to be that after the supposed oracle has declared Dharma- 
buddhi guilty, he must pretend to confess guilt before taking action 
leading to a demonstration of his innocence. I do not know where 
Hertel gets this extraordinary legal principle. I have never heard of it, 
in Hindu law or any other. It seems to me clear that Tantrakhyayika 
has a secondary version at this point. Ksemendra follows T; the other 
versions all agree substantially, with the minor exceptions noted in my — 
discussion of the passage, J. ¢. . 

At any rate, it is begging the whole question to assume, as Hertel 
does, that because the other versions have no mention of a snake in 
this passage, therefore they must go back to a text which agreed with the 
T mss. in having the supposedly corrupt reading aham, which Hertel would 
emend to ahim. Hertel forgets that in the same passage, further down, 
the T mss. contain the uncorrupt and unmistakable word krsnasarpam. 
According to his theory, then, the other versions must have ignored this 
word, tho it was not corrupted. Their failure to mention the snake, there- 
fore, cannot possibly be due merely to the supposed corruption of ahim to 
aham. Such a theory would have to explain why they ignored krsnasarpam. 


~ 


Edgerton, Paneatantra. I. ( 


98 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


5. The crocodile and the ape, T A286; Reconstruction LV § 56.— 
On this see page 102 below. It concerns another passage in which Hertel 
emends the mss. of T, and assumes that all other versions must go back 
to an at least equally corrupt archetype. I shall show, on the contrary, 
that the entire clause containing the word in question is probably an 
interpolation in T; and that at any rate there is no reason to prefer ‘I’s 
text to that of the other versions; quite the contrary. But since there is 
in the other texts no trace whatever of this passage in T, whether corrupt 
or uncorrupt, there is certainly no reason for assuming that they all go 
back to the corrupt version of it. All the texts frequently omit original 
passages where there is not the slightest reason to assume corruptions. 

6. The verse T III. 1253; Reconstruction ILI vs 107.— This verse, 
which oceurs only in T, SP, N, and Pn (so that again it could prove 
nothing for an archetype of “all” versions), is very violently emended 
by Hertel, in a way which results in a destruction of what seems to me 
the obvious intent. For the readings, see my Critical Apparatus. The 
preceding prose (III § 300) says: “ Royalty goes with [belongs to, comes 
naturally to] a man who is generous, wise, and heroic.” This verse then 
proceeds: ‘“ When a man is generous, heroic, and wise, people [retainers, 
attendants, subjects] attach themselves to him; and these ‘people’ con- 
stitute his. superiority. One who has [this] superiority gets riches, from 
riches comes fortune [majesty, sri]; one who has fortune has authority, 
and from that comes royalty.” It seems to me clear that the three qualities 
of generosity, wisdom, and heroism are the joint starting-point of the 
logical development leading to royalty. All versions, as we have them, 
support this view. Hertel, by inserting in pada a the word vidyd, utterly 
destroys this logical development by making “ wisdom,” one of the three 
coordinates, develop out of the other two, “heroism” and “ generosity.” 
His ‘“‘emendation” results in the following meaning: “ When a man is 
generous and heroic he gets wisdom [! a curious dictum!]; in a man who 
is wise and intelligent virtues acquire their real value” &c. (reading with 
T’ in the second pada). Why does a man who is generous and heroic 
necessarily get wisdom? 

As to the readings of the several texts: Ptirnabhadra has the correct 
reading in the first pada; SP and T spoil the meter by omitting ca (by 
haplography?—the next word begins with the syllable va-, which is very 
like ca in Devanagari and not unlike it in Sarada). The ‘correct reading 
in the second pada is furnisht by SPa and N, largely supported by Pn. 
In ¢ all texts agree. Ind T and Pn have the correct reading, apparently, 
altho possibly the readings of SP« and N might be considered. 

Accordingly, my opinion of this stanza is that the “ emendation ” which 
Hertel would make in the texts of the versions that contain this verse 
is nothing but a “.Schlimmbesserung,” which spoils the apparent original 
sense of the verse. In spite of the divergences of the various texts, each 
pada is correctly preserved in some one of them, at least. 

7. The vs T I. 174; Reconstruction I vs 163.—Here Hertel apparently 
assumes (SP p. LVI f.) two corruptions of his “t,” namely, in pada b the 


Summary and conclusion regarding “ t” 99 


unmetrical bhavitavyam for bhavyam, and in pada e anugamyo for anu- 
kampyo. (For the readings of all texts see my Critical Apparatus.) 

As to the first: the arya meter requires bhavyam, not bhavitavyam. All 
mss. of ‘I’ nevertheless read bhavitavyam. Four mss. of SPa read likewise. 
All other (twelve) mss. of SP, including several of SPa, and one of them, 
K, the oldest and best according to Hertel, read correctly bhavyam. N, the 
nearest relative of SP, also has bhdvyam; so has Pn. The verse occurs 
nowhere else in Sanskrit. Will anyone believe that on the basis of the 
corruption bhavitavyam in T and four SP« mss., Hertel assumes that this 
corruption must have been in the archetype of all Paficatantra versions, 
ignoring the correct reading of all the other versions? It sounds incredible; 
but this is just what he says. Note especially that the ms. K of SP has 
bhavyam; and compare the following. 

Secondly: anukampyo is read by Tf, Pn, and N (with the slight cor- 
ruption anukampo in N). It is supported as to meaning by the Pahlavi 
(Old Syriac, “lass dir’s...leid tun um ihn”). Tx has anugamyo, SP adhi- 
gamyo (v.1. of « abhi®; K, the “best ms.,” anugamyo). As to this Hertel 
says “durch K scheint auch das anugamyo des 3. Pada in Sar. Banal We” 
fiir den Archetypos von SP. gesichert.” (Italics mine.) Compare this with 
Hertel’s conclusion about the preceding question, bhavitavyam or bhdvyam, 
and what do we find? There SP’s ms. K with eleven others read bhavyam, 
correctly; but never mind, the incorrect bhavitavyam is certainly the 
reading of the SP archetype—because we must show that the archetype 
was incorrect, lest Tantrakhyayika appear less correct than another version. 
Here, the ms. K is the only SP ms. which has the reading anugamyo; and 
the Nepalese has the correct reading anukamp[ylo. But since Ta has anw- 
gamyo, the reading of the single ms. K is this time enuf to make anu- 
gamyo “gesichert” for the SP archetype! Perfect agreements of half a 
dozen versions outside of the Tantrakhyayika mean nothing at all; but 
the agreement of a single ms. of one subrecension of one version, with 
the sacred Tantrakhyayika « (altho Tf agrees with the others), is enuf— 
even if it is a bad reading—to establish absolutely the archetype of all 
of them! 

I need hardly say that in my opinion the evidence shows clearly that 
the archetype of “all versions” read bhdvyam in b, with all versions 
except T and a few SP mss., and anukampyo in ec, with T6, Pn, N, and 
Pa (at least three independent sources), while the variant anugamyo of T 
and the variants adhigamyo &c., and (in one ease) anugamyo, of various 
SP mss., are corruptions. 


Summary and conclusion regarding ‘“t.’’—Of the seven cases 
adduced by Hertel in support of his corrupt archetype “t”: 
The first concerns a secondary reading in T alone. The correct 
reading is found in SP, Pn; a different corruption in H; Pa 
and Br are uncertain but indicate, if anything, that they go 


back to the correct and original reading. 
7*¥ 


100 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


The second concerns what is not really a corruption at all; 
the reading of the mss. of T (supported by SP) is correct. 
Hertel merely failed to understand it. The transposition of the 
two half-verses in T is secondary. The verse in question is found 
only in T, SP, N, Pn, and therefore could prove nothing for 
an archetype of ‘ all versions.” 

The third also concerns what is probably no corruption in 
T. In any case Pa’s version is correct in meaning and there 
is no reason to assume a corruption in it or its archetype. 
Besides T and Pa the passage occurs only in So and can there- 
fore prove nothing for an archetype of “all versions.” 

The fourth concerns what is in all probability a secondary 
expansion in T, otherwise found only in Ks. The corruption 
which Hertel assumes in the T mss. would not, in any case, 
explain the different versions of the other texts. That is, even 
if Tis original, the other texts do not indicate descent from 
the corrupt version of that original which exists in the T mss. 
according to Hertel. 

The fifth also concerns what is in all probability a secondary 
expansion in T. It will be shown later that T is certainly un- 
original, and inconsistent with itself, in the context at this 
point. The other versions agree closely in sense and there is 
no reason to doubt their originality. As in the preceding case, 
there is, anyhow, no reason for supposing that the other texts 
are connected in any way with the corrupt version of the T 
mss., even if Hertel were otherwise right in his reasoning. 

The sixth again concerns a passage which Hertel misunder- 
stands. His assumption as to what the original read is impos- 
sible. There is no common corruption in the versions. This 
passage too occurs only in T, SP, N, and Pn, so that it could 
prove nothing for an archetype of “all versions.” 

The seventh concerns two words in a single verse, found 
only in T, SP, N, Pn, and Pa. The first word is found correetly 
in all versions but T (and a few mss. of SP). The second word 
is found correctly in Té, Pn, N, and the archetype of Pa; it 
is changed only in Tx and SP, and only one ms. of SP has 
the same change as Ta. 


Such is the evidence from which Hertel draws such sweep- 
ing conclusions! In four of the seven cases (1, 2, 3, and 7) 


The supposed archetype “K” 101 


of the supposed corruptions, Hertel himself assumes ‘“ gliick- 
liche Besserungen ” in at least one, and usually several, versions. 
This is enuf to make us suspicious. In two of the others (4 
and 5) the agreement of the non-T versions is purely negative; 
they do not have a passage found in T in which Hertel assumes 
a corruption; and he assumes that they left it out, or substituted 
something else, because it was corrupt in their archetype (of 
course a gratuitous assumption, since there is no version that 
does not frequently leave out minor details in which there is 
no reason to suspect corruption). The remaining case (6) is 
the one and only case in which all versions containing the 
passage (namely T, SP, N, and Pn; not “all Pajicatantra 
versions!) agree positively on a reading which Hertel thinks 
is corrupt; but I think, on the contrary, that if they agreed 
in reading Hertel’s ‘ emendation,’’ we should almost be justified 
in discarding it, so improbable is it. 

Not one case offers even plausible grounds for assuming the 
archetype ‘“t,” or for supposing that all existing versions go 
back to a corrupt archetype. 


oo 


II. The supposed archetype “KK”. 


What is meant by the archetype ““K”’?—A much more im- 
portant matter than “‘t,’’ because its consequences are far more 
disastrous, is Hertel’s opinion that all Pancatantra versions ex- 
cept Tantrakhyayika,—to wit, SP, N, H, So, Ks, Pa, and Spl and 
Pn except where they borrowed from T,—go back to a single 
archetype, called “ K,’ which differed from the archetype of 
T and in particular contained certain definite corruptions. Hertel 
further believes that T@ was to some extent contaminated with 
an offshoot of this “ K,” so that only Ta is wholly independent 
of it. If true, this would obviously be of the utmost importance 
for weighing the evidence of the Pafcatantra versions and 
reconstructing the original. If true, it would utterly vitiate my 
reconstruction; for agreements between all the other versions 
would be only equal in weight, for the purposes of the re- 
construction, to the evidence of Tantrakhyayika « alone. That 
is precisely what Hertel claims. As to the means of proving 
it, he seems to recognize that it is necessary to demonstrate 
common changes or corruptions in all of these versions. No 


102 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


amount of agreements in original inheritances would prove 
anything. Furthermore, it is, or should be, clear that the same 
change must be demonstrated in all the versions in question 
in order to have demonstrative foree. And I should add: it 
must be a change which could not easily be supposed to have 
occurred independently. It is likewise my opinion that a very 
considerable number of such common corruptions would be 
required to demonstrate Hertel’s point. In both of these two 
latter respects it will be seen that Hertel’s demonstration is 
seriously lacking. But furthermore, I hope to be able to show 
that Hertel’s cases are individually unsound. I think that all 
of them permit, and most of them demand, other interpretations. 
I shall now proceed to consider one by one the cases which 
Hertel thinks support his hypothesis of an archetype “KK”. 


1. The ape and the crocodile; Book LV, frame, particularly T A 286; 
Reconstruction IV § 36.—In my above-mentioned article, AJP. 36, 259 ff., 
Ihave discust this passage at length. Except for one point, which I shall 
mention presently, I believe that all I say there is sound; and to save 
space I shall try to be briefer here. The main point is that in all versions 
except T’ the crocodile invites the monkey to come to his own house, 
which (in Pa and the Jain versions) is located on a lovely island where 
there are beautiful trees full of luscious fruits. This Hertel considers 
absurd, because the crocodile’s house “liegt ja im Wasser”. (How does 
Hertel know this? In Pa and Jn, on the contrary, the crocodile distinctly 
states that his house was on the island. Suppose this was a lie; what 
does that matter? How could the ape know where the crocodile’s home 
was ?)—In T, on the other hand, the crocodile says (A 286, Reconstruction 1V 
§ 36) yo ’yam antardvipakah samudramadhye, atra maydbhinavayduvana- 
sampannad ritpavatyas tisro naryo (so mss.; Hertel emends to vdnaryo) 
drstapurvah (read probably *dr°?) prativasanti sma, amrtdsvadatulyah kal- 
pavrksasadrsds taravah. tatraham tvam prstham dropya prapayamitt.—In 
the other versions there is no mention of the three “she-apes” (? mss. 
“women,” “females’’), This is another of the “ corruptions ” which Hertel 
ascribes to his “t,’ and assumes to have been in the archetype of all 
the versions (see p. 98). The sense of the above passage is closely re- 
produced in both Pa and the Jain versions, exeept that the clause about 
the naryo (or vanaryo) is omitted. Hertel assumes that the redactor of 
“KX” found it in his archetype “t,” but left it out because with the 
corrupt reading naryo it made poor sense. Since that time it has been 
pointed out by a pupil of mine, Miss Ruth Norton, that this clause is 
evidently a close imitation of a clause which occurs in the story of the © 
Ass without Heart and Ears (IV. 1); see my Critical Apparatus on IV § 65. 
At that place, IV $65, the sentence is supported by other versions, and 
clearly belongs to the original. Here it seems to me equally clear, after 


eae 


Archetype ““K”: The ape and the crocodile 103 


Miss Norton’s observation, that T has borrowed the sentence (with very 
slight adaptations) from that place. Such borrowings from one Pafica- 
tantra story into another occur elsewhere (e. g. in T itself, see my Critical 
Apparatus on I § 587, and p. 178 below), but are never to be attributed 
to the original Paficatantra, I think, since they never occur in more than 
one version. The original Paficatantra was not guilty of any such poverty 
of invention; it did not need to borrow from itself. 

Hertel tries, to be sure, to maintain that this motivation of the croco- 
dile’s trick is for other reasons the only one which the original can have 
had. He thinks that SP refers to it in the ape’s later lamentation (after 
he had discovered the trick), our § 42 and vs 14. But raga and ragin 
(vs 14; cf. Hertel, Tantr. Ein]. p. 90) do not necessarily mean “ Geschlechts- 
liebe” and “die Verliebten,’ as Hertel renders them in order to carry 
his point. The Pahlavi versions (the only ones which have preserved an 
equivalent of vs 14 besides SP and N) speak only of “ greediness,” and 
that is clearly what SP means by raga, since in SP there has been no 
hint of the sex motif. It is greediness for the delicious fruits of § 36 that 
is referred to; just as in the Jataka version of the same story, which 
knows only fruits as tempting objects, not females. 

For these reasons I now think that there is not a shadow of ground 
for believing that the original Paficatantra had any mention of the sex 
motif as used by the crocodile in seducing the ape. No version of this 
widespread story has such a motif, so far as I know (in spite of Hertel, 
op. cit. p. 90; for the story of Parisistaparvan II. 720 ff. is clearly a “ 'Tar- 
Baby” story—as Hertel himself indicates elsewhere, see Dihnhardt, 
Natursagen, 4.27 ff.—and is not in any way connected with this motif). 
Correct accordingly my tentative admission, AJP. 36. 261, top; when I wrote 
that, I was still too much imprest by Hertel’s confident assertions. 

The rest of my remarks J. c. are devoted to pointing out that Hertel 
in his haste overlookt an important fact about the Tantrakhyayika, which 
breaks down the keystone of his arch, and incidentally proves that the 
Tantrakhyayika, so far from being the “only correct version,” is here 
obviously corrupt and inconsistent with itself—a very bitter pill for 
Hertel to swallow! The great superiority of T over the other versions 
consists, according to Hertel, in the fact that T does not, like them, make 
the “absurd proposal” that the ape should come to the crocodile’s house. 
It is indeed true that no such words occur in the crocodile’s speeches 
in .T. But in T “A 284,” our IV §§ 32 and 33, the ape is represented as 
saying to the crocodile: yac ca bhavatabhihitam, grhagamanadaradar- 
Sandikapatrabhisambandht maya bhavan na krtah, &c. These words are 
simple nonsense as the T stands, for the crocodile had said no such thing. 
But they prove, for one who has eyes, that T goes back to a version 
which did represent the crocodile as inviting the ape to come to his 
house,—yes, and to see his wife too (which Hertel thinks is a peculiarly 
inept idea). Either (1) words to this effect must have originally been put 
into the crocodile’s mouth before this point (and been lost in T); or 
(2)—and this seems to me much more likely, as shown by the other 


104 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


versions, q. v.in my Critical Apparatus—this passage of 'T, just quoted, 
represents the very language originally spoken by the crocodile, and 'T 
is corrupt only in attributing it to the ape. (I assume that T lost, by a 
lacuna, our IV § 82, which the Pahlavi preserves, and in which the croco- 
dile begins to speak: also our IV vs 8, of which reflexes are found in-Pa 
and So; and that then T tried to patch up our § 33, originally a part 
of the crocodile’s speech, by inserting yac ca bhavatabhihitam, so as to 
make it fit in the ape’s mouth; the redactor failing to note that the 
crocodile had not said anything like the words which he makes the ape 
quote from the crocodile. Note that T’s text has two serious gaps, which 
Hertel also recognizes, almost immediately after this place. Evidently the 
archetype of all our T mss. was fragmentary in this vicinity.) 

To summarize: instead of proving that all versions except T go back 
to a single corrupt archetype at this point, the passage proves that most 
of them are superior to T in two respects. (1) They present the crocodile’s 
invitation to the ape to visit his house in a rational and consistent form, 
whereas T (does not leave it out, as Hertel hastily asserts, but) presents 
it in a verballhornt form, grossly inconsistent with itself. (2) They agree 
with the Jatakas and other versions of the story in making the motif that 
seduced the ape a desire for luscious fruits, not for sexual gratification. 
‘l’s sentence, referring to the latter motif was clearly not in the original 
and was almost certainly borrowed from a passage in the story of the 
Ass without Heart and Ears.? 





2 In closing his discussion of this passage, Tantr. Einl. p. 94f., Hertel 
alludes briefly to a few other points which he seems to think support his 
“Kx ” hypothesis. (1) In Reconstruction IV § 41, in various ‘‘K ” versions, 
the crocodile tells the ape that physicians and exorcists have recommended 
an ape’s heart to cure his wife. In IV § 24 the wife’s friend had told the 
crocodile that this remedy was “a matter of secret knowledge among 
women” (this statement also in T). Hertel strangely regards this as an 
inconsistency in the “K” versions. Of course it is nothing of the kind. In 
his over-eagerness to make a point, Hertel, as in many other cases, quite 
loses sight of the realities of the situation. In § 24 the wife’s friend is 
deceiving the crocodile; in § 41 the crocodile is deceiving the ape; in 
both cases a fraud is being practist. In reality the crocodile’s wife was 
not sick at all, unless ‘ heartsick” with jealousy of her husband. No one 
had really prescribed an ape’s heart for her. The two different allegations 
are both perfectly suited to the different situations, and both are undoubt- 
edly parts of the original Paficatantra; the failure of T to preserve § 41 
is doubtless due to the fragmentary state of its mss., and is in any case a 
secondary omission. The female friend, speaking to the crocodile, naturally 
alleges that the remedy of the ape’s heart is a feminine secret; that is 
an argument to which a mere male can have no reply, whereas if she had 
attributed it to physicians, the fraud might have been discovered by the 
crocodile. But when the crocodile speaks of the matter to the ape, he 
naturally would not admit that he was proposing to kill his friend on the 


Archetype “K”: The verse T Il. 90; Reconstruction I] vs 55 105 


2. The verse T II. 90; Reconstruction IIT vs 55.—This verse is found 
only in T, Pn, and the offshoots of Ur-SP (SP, N, H); no trace of it 
occurs in Pa, So, Ks, or Spl. Accordingly it could prove nothing for an 
archetype of “all versions except T.” The reading clearly indicated for 
the original is: 

na svalpam apy adhyavasayabhiroh karoti vijfianavidhir gunam hi 

andhasya kim hastatalasthito ‘pi nivartayaty artham iha pradipah. 
Thus, with variants which need not concern us now (see Crit. App.; I 
agree with Hertel that the readings just quoted are indicated for the 
original of SP, N, H, and Pn), all versions but T. T reads avyavasdya° 
in a, and dndhyam for artham in d. These variations, as Hertel points 
out, apparently originate in graphic confusions due to the Sarada alphabet. 
Anyone but Hertel would consider it a natural inference, then, that they 
originated in the only recension known to exist in Sarada mss., namely 'T. 
Hertel, on the contrary, thinks they indicate that all the other versions 
go back to a Sarada original, a hypothesis for which there is not a 
seintilla of real evidence, and which is most improbable.—Hertel finds 
the readings of IT’ obviously superior. I cannot agree. The SP-N-H-Pn 
version means: “ The acquisition of knowledge does not confer the least 
advantage upon one who is afraid to take a firm stand. Does a light 
confer any advantage upon a blind man here, even tho it be placed in 
the palm of his hand?” The T version means: “ The acquisition ... upon 
one who is irresolute and fearful. Does a light remove the blindness of a 
blind man” &¢. The T redactor read artham as *antham (which is graphi- 
cally close to it in Sarada), and under the influence of the preceding 
word andhasya assumed a mistake for dndhyam, “ blindness;” this was 
accompanied by a reinterpretation of nivartayaty in the sense of “ remove,” 
which the word may also have. There is no reason whatever for pre- 
ferring T’s reading to that of the other texts. For a fuller discussion, 
see AJP. 36. 262 ff. 

3. The verse T II. 253; Reconstruction II vs 15.—The verse is found 
in all texts but So and Ks. It reads: 


satruna na hi sarhdadhyat suslistenapi sarndhina 
sutaptam api paniyain Samayaty eva pavakam. 


The only variants are: in a, Spl vdwrind, T satrundpi na®; ine, T ataptam 
(ms. R dlaptam). Pa’s version supports that of the majority of Sanskrit 
texts.--“‘ With an enemy one should not ally himself, not even with a 
very close alliance. Water, even tho heated very hot, still puts out fire.” 
The heating of water very hot constitutes a very close approach to the 





basis of an “ old wives’ tale”; he attributes the prescription to reputable 
medical authorities.—(2) All the remaining passages referred to /. c. concern 
features of the original which have disappeared or been changed in T. 
I do not see how Hertel can imagine that they prove anything except the 
imperfection of Tantrakhyayika. Every one of the features concerned fits 
its context admirably, as Hertel seems tacitly to admit. 


106 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


nature of fire—as close as water is capable of—and is therefore meta- 
phorically referred to as “a very close alliance” with fire. In spite of 
such a “close alliance,” water puts out fire. So alliance, however close, 
with a natural enemy is dangerous.—The T reading can have sense only 
by understanding ataptam punningly as “not injured;” “water, even tho 
not heated (not injured), still puts out fire.” But the point of suslistenapi 
samdhina, “even (note the emphatic api) with a very close alliance,” is 
surely more in keeping with the other version. Nothing is said in the 
first half verse about not injuring an ally. 

In WZKM. 25. 13 ff. Hertel reconsiders this verse (replying to a sug- 
gestion from Thomas, which I agree with Hertel in considering untenable). 
He adds nothing of moment to his previous arguments. He seems to me 
to miss the point of the verse altogether. It is not necessary to suppose 
that a benefit is considered as being done to the water by being heated, 
nor that the root tap is used of a friendly action. The point is simply 
and solely that a man who tries to form a close alliance with his natural 
enemy is likened to fire trying to ally itself with water. The heating of 
the water is metaphorically spoken of as an attempt to make water like 
fire in its nature. The attempt must be unsuccessful; water still puts out 
fire. So, no matter how much a man may try (by a “close alliance”) to 
assimilate his enemy to himself, the enemy will still injure him. 

4, Huskt or unhuskt sesame? Story II. 2.—This is the only other 
case (? ef. however No. 5, below) advanst by Hertel in favor of his arche- 
type “K” in his first statement of the case (Tantr. Einl. p. 28 ff.). We 
are here confronted by a serious problem, no possible solution of which 
is free from difficulties. For a complete discussion see AJP. 36. 266 ff., 
and my Critical Apparatus on Reconstruction IL vs 27. Here I shall merely 
state the general facts. 

(a) The catch-verse (II vs 27) to the Sesame story, II. 2, seems to have 
originally referred to the exchange of huskt for huskt sesame. This is, in 
my Opinion, not certain, but probable. So T reads, and also certain off- 
shoots of Spl; the other Sanskrit versions are all non-committal and do 
not mention either “huskt for huskt” or “huskt for unhuskt.” Only Pa 
has “huskt for unhuskt.” According to Hertel, the verse read “huskt for 
huskt” not only in the Ur-Paficatantra, but also in his “ K,” which thus 
is not claimed to have been corrupt at this point. The verse, therefore, 
does not concern us directly. 

(b) In the prose story, after the huskt sesame has been defiled, the 
house-wife sends a boy (or, in some versions, goes herself) to exchange 
them. For what? According to § 132, probably for “black sesame” 
(krsnatilaih, 'T); her allegation was to be that she had changed her mind 
and wanted to make something of “black sesame,” instead of the “ white 
sesame’ which she had. In T—but only in T, so-that there is no good 
reason for supposing it to be original—the boy adds (after our II § 133) 
the injunction that the “black sesame” must also be huskt, since the 
white sesame which is offered in exchange is huskt. (Note that the woman 
is not said to have given such instructions in T.) Now, in SP’s version 


rm 98 6 
. 


Archetype “IK”: Huskt or unhuskt sesame ? 107 
of § 132, we find the phrase ghrstatildis tilan parigrhitvd, corresponding 
to ‘I's imans tildn (lunecitan api) krsnatilaih pardvartayitva. The verbal 
correspondence is sufficiently close to suggest that there l'as been a 
phonetic confusion between krsna° and ghrsta’. SP’s text means “ getting 
in exchange sesame for [this] huskt sesame.” Still there is nothing to indi- 
cate whether the sesame to be received in exchange was to be huskt. or 
unhuskt. (The SP« mss. have a different reading, which is clearly secondary, 
since more remote from the original, here represented by T.) 

(c) But once the word ghrstatila was introduced, displacing the pre- 
sumably original kysna°®, the motive to be alleged for the exchange (black 
for white) was lost. Since ghrsta means “rubbed” or the like, and so 
“huskt,” it was a natural further change to make the woman offer this 
huskt sesame in exchange for unhuskt, hoping thus by offering a bargain 
to get an exchange. This is what SP does; in § 134 we find it reading 
aghrstatilair ghrsta grhyante. It is worthy of note—and seems to have 
escaped Hertel’s attention—that T reads in our § 134, in place of the 
phrase just quoted from SP, samdrghdas tila maya labdhah, sukiah krsnaih. 
Not luicita lurcitach! Even in T’s version the main point is, not “ huskt 
for huskt,” but “white for black,”—in so far as it has any sort of corre- 
spondents in the other versions. Only in the evident insertion mentioned 
in my Crit. App. on.§ 133 is emphasis laid on the “huskt for huskt” 
idea; and this is hardly consistent with 'T itself in § 134, where the main 
point is “ white for black.” 

(d) In short, nowhere in the original prose—as indicated by the sub- 
stantial agreements of T and SP (allowing for the latter’s phonetie cor- 
ruption)—is there any mention of either “huskt for huskt” or “ huskt 
for unhuskt.” This is the case also with So and Ks, which as usual are 
very much abbreviated (So even more than usual, so much so that Hertel 
assumes a lacuna in its archetype; but this is very unlikely, I think; see 
p- 117 below). The Jain versions are, as often, quite independent; and in 
them we find the trade spoken of clearly as “huskt for unhuskt.” The 
exchange of different colors is wholly eliminated. So also. Pa. But both 
Jn and Pa differ so radically from T and SP at this point that we cannot 
use them for the reconstruction. All that is clear is that they have wholly 
changed their originals. See footnote 3, page 108, for a possible explanation 
of their alteration. 

(e) The ambiguity of the original prose, as regards the point whether 
the sesame was to be huskt or not, made it very easy for later versions 
to forget, or alter, the catch-verse, and represent the woman as offering 
huskt sesame for unhuskt. This is exactly analogous to the motif of 
“new lamps for old,” familiar to us all from the famous story of Aladdin 
in the Arabian Nights. Obviously, to an oriental mind at least, this must 
be a natural motif. We cannot, therefore, agree with Hertel when he 
scornfully rejects it as inconceivably stupid. 

(f) I hold, therefore, that the story originally dealt with an exchange 
of “huskt for huskt” sesame, but that this was clearly stated only in 
the catch-verse, whereas the prose story spoke only of offering white 


108 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


for black sesame.? The Ur-SP, Ur-Spl, and the archetype of Pa, by in- 
dependent and verbally quite different variations, changed the story (in 
SP probably owing to a merely phonetic corruption) to make it fall in 
with the familiar motif illustrated by the “new lamps for old” of Aladdin. 

(g) At the same time I should be willing to grant that this is the 
kind of agreement between SP, Spl, and Pa, which would, if found in 
sufficient numbers, tend to justify Hertel’s assumption of their secondary 
connexion. It is, however, the only one of this kind, with the possible 
exception of No. 9 below, so far presented by Hertel; all his other cases 
are illusory. And it would require not one, but dozens, of such cases to 
prove the point. It is easy to find just as strong evidence as this which, 
if considered alone, could be made to prove interrelation between ab- 
solutely any two Paficatantra versions. Because of the lack of other 
supporting evidence of the same sort, it seems clear to me that we are 
dealing in this case with a mere chance coincidence between several 
independent versions, of the sort which we find in abundance thruout 
the Paficatantra. Hertel surely has no right to object to this hypothesis, 
since he repeatedly assumes that agreements between several versions, 
even when they correctly represent the original Pancatantra, are due to 
“ sliickliche Besserungen” and are therefore purely fortuitous. 

5. Other evidence for **K’’ in Hertel, Tantr. Einl. p. 312?—From 
Hertel’s language on p. 31 of the introduction to his translation of Tantra- 
khyayika, it is perhaps to be inferred (tho the language is not clear to 
me) that he regards the verses treated in the places there mentioned (in 
the introduction to his edition of SP) as evidence for this “ K.” These 
passages are the following. 

T vs I. 125; Reconstruction I vs 124. The catch-verse of the story of 
Strandbirds and Sea, I. 9. The so-called “K” yersions go back to an 
original which means: “‘ He who without knowing the prowess of the enemy 
picks a quarrel, comes to grief as the sea did from the strandbird.” T 
alone reads adkrandam for vikramam (or the like), making it mean, accord- 
ing to Hertel: “ He who without knowing the cry {but see below!] of the 
enemy ’’ &c. The story is told by Damanaka to Sathjivaka by way of 
warning against undertaking to fight the lion. The word “ery” in such 
a connexion seems a palpable absurdity to me. Hertel tries to justify it 
—and even to insist that it is the only possible meaning for the original 
—by arguing that the strandbird, in the story, “cries” to Garuda, thru 
whose intervention Visnu helps him out. This seems weak enuf at best: 








5 It is possible that this was understood by later redactors as “ huskt for 
unhuskt”, that is, that the sesame was black with the husks on, but that 
the huskt kernels were white. From information at my disposal it appears 
that there are various kinds of sesame, of different colors, some black on 
the outside and white inside, but some either white or black both outside 
and inside. The later versions which speak of “huskt for unhuskt” may 
have understood “white for black” in that sense; and this may be re- 
sponsible for their change. 


Archetype “K”: TI. 19, Reconstruction I vs 21 109 
it was not the “ery” of the bird that injured the sea; but in any case 
it seems to me to have no bearing on the question. The verse must have 
a general application, besides its application to the story of the Strand- 
birds and Sea; and in particular it must be capable of application to the 
situation between the lion and the bull. To suggest that the bull did not 
know the lion’s “ery,” or particularly his “ery for help” (!), is ridiculous. 
And in fact that is not what Tantrakhyayika means. The word dkranda 
means not “ery” but “ally,” a person upon whom one ean call for help, 
especially against an unexpected attack in the rear. (See the Kautiliya 
Arthasastra, Bk. 6, Ch. 2 and Bk. 7, Ch. 4; Ist ed., pages 258 and 271.) 
The Tantrakhyayika is not so stupid as Hertel would make it. It refers 
to the powerful allies and protectors of the strandbird. But this fits the 
situation between the lion and the bull very poorly; the lion has no allies 
and needs none, against the bull. It is his ‘‘ prowess” which the bull has 
_to fear. 

T vs I. 155; Reconstruction I vs 146.—Here we find Tf agreeing with 
SP and Pn against (what seems to me evidently) a lectio facilior of Tx 
and N. Hertel, of course, thinks N a “ gliickliche Besserung.” See my 
Crit. App. ad loc.; there I point out that N makes absolute nonsense with 
its reading, so that in N, at least, the reading (Sasdnkasya) which Hertel 
thinks is the only right one can only be a blundering lectio facilior. This 
seems to me reasonable support for my opinion that the reading of all 
other versions—SP, Pn, and even T$—is the right one, and that Tx, like N, 
has a mere blunder. 

Hertel also refers J. c. to p. LIX of the introduction to his edition 
of SP. I find at that place an attempt on his part to prove that SP 
and H go back to a corrupt Sarada archetype; but as Hertel does not 
even try to show that the supposed corruption concerns any texts except 
SP and H (both descendants of his “n—w,” or what I call the Ur-SP), 
it is clear that they show nothing whatsoever about “K.” I therefore do 
not understand Hertel’s reference to this place in connexion with “K” 
and can only attribute it to carelessness on his part. 

This is the extent of the “evidence” advanst by Hertel for his “ arche- 
type K” in his Tantrakhyayika translation. Since that time, however, 
he has brought forward certain other passages which he thinks confirm 
his opinion. It is necessary now to consider them. 


6. The verse T I. 19; Reconstruction I vs 21.—This is treated by 
Hertel WZKM. 25. 9 ff. It is found in T, SP, N, Spl, Pn, and Pa. My 
reconstruction reads: 

kopaprasadavasttini vicinvantah samipagah 
arohanti sanair bhrtya dhunvantam api parthivam. 


Thus, with minor variants (see my Crit. App.), all versions except T, 
which reads dhirtam tam for dhunvantam. SP ed. reads pdrthivadrumam 
(SP« as text) for api pdrthivam; and this gives the key to the inter- 
pretation. Ministers can gradually manage to “climb” a king (as a tree), 
“even tho he shakes (sways in the wind).” Hertel, however, maintains 


110 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


that the T’ reading is the original, meaning “even tho he (the king) is 
sly.” He also argues that the comparison is not with a tree, but with a 
mountain, because later on (I § 49) there occurs a speech in which, in 
the ‘I’ version, kings are declared to be durdrohah as mountains, and 
Hertel sees in this an allusion, and an answer, to drohanti of pada ec of 
this verse. bw 

In the first place, it seems rather questionable to take dhurta in the 
sense of “sly, cunning.” It tsually means “rogue, cheat, scoundrel,” which 
would not fit here. 

More important is the objection that § 49 can hardly be interpreted 
as a reply to this vs. There intervene two prose sections and several 
verses dealing with wholly different subjects. The verse we are consider- 
ing is spoken by Damanaka; Karataka’s immediate response is simply 
an inquiry as to what D. plans to say to the lion. If § 49 were Karataka’s 
response to this stanza, it would be put next to it, or certainly would, 
not be separated from it by so much unconnected matter. Moreover in 
§ 49 only T reads durdrohah; SP and both Jain versions read instead 
durarddhyah (So durdsadah), and this, in my opinion, proves that dura- 
radhyah, not durarohah, was the original Paficatantra reading in § 49. 
Therewith falls the verbal assonance with drohanti, and the last prop 
for Hertel’s. theory. 

Hertel mentions the fact that the SP« mss. read dhiinvantam for dhun®, 
and claims that this “false reading” contains in its long @ a relic of the 
original dhiirtam! The @ is of course not at all “false;” from the earliest 
times to the latest the forms dhiinoti &e. occur by the side of dhwnoti Xe. 

The interchange dhunvantam: dhirtam tam is, as Hertel notes, one 
which seems to be due to a confusion in the Sarada alphabet. This, pace 
Hertel, would suggest naturally that the change probably took place in 
the only Pafic. recension which is known ever to have been written in 
Sarada, namely, Tantrakhyayika. That is, T has changed dhunvantam— 
on every account to be regarded as the original reading—to dhiirtam tam 
by a corruption which is very easy and natural in Sarada. 

7. The verse T II. 61; Reconstruction Il vs 35.—In WZKM. 25, 23 
Hertel refers to this as another instance of an inferior reading in “ K.” 
‘The verse is found only in SP, N, H, and Pn, besides T, so that it could 
prove nothing for an antecedent of Pa, Br, and Spl.—The variation 
referred to by Hertel is found in the fourth pada of the verse, which 
reads in Ta: 

Sete hakara iva sainkucitakhilaigah, 


while all other versions, including T$ (which Hertel thinks borrowed the 
vs from “K”) read, with slight variations (see Crit. App.): 

canyah ksanena bhavatity aticitram etat. 
The thing which to my mind proves, contrary to Hertel’s view, that Ta 
is secondary, is this. The Ta mss. add the supposed “K” reading of the 
pada (with omission of the first word), in their text, immediately after 
the following prose sentence! In other words, the « mss. have a doublet 


Archetype “K”: End of Book IV. Lid 


of the pada. Evidently the progenitor of the « mss. added one or the 
other reading in the margin, whence it was later copied into the text, 
without deletion of the alternative reading. The only question is, which 
version was the original, and which the gloss? Were the matter not dis- 
torted in Hertel’s mind by his mistaken opinion about the relationship 
of the versions, I feel sure that he would agree that the probabilities 
favor the version which is found in both groups of T mss. And this pro- 
bability is raised to a practical certainty by the fact that all the other 
Paficatantra versions agree in having the reading which alone is found 
in 6, and which is also found, tho misplaced, in T«.—Both readings in 
this case make good sense; there is nothing to choose between them. 
That wsman in pada ec is understood by the Ta version in the double 
sense of “breath,” referring to the letter h, may well be. But that does 
not prove that it was so understood originally. On the contrary, this may 
suggest the origin of Te’s variant. The redactor who composed or inserted 
the variant saw a good chance to make a pun, and, Hindu-like, could 
not resist it. 

8. End of Book IV.—In Pajic. p. 443 Hertel refers also to WZAM. 25. 
36 f. for an additional proof of “K.”’ Iam unable to find anything there 
which could possibly be considered as even a semblance of such proof. 
Does Hertel refer to the end of Book IV, which he there discusses? If 
so, he must allude to the fact that the Pahlavi versions have obvious 
correspondences to certain parts of Tf which are omitted in Ta at the 
end of Book IV. Hertel asserts that these passages are secondary additions 
of “KX,” taken over thence into Tf, and that the original Book IV ended 
as 'T« does. He does not even make an attempt to prove this statement; 
so I hardly know how to answer him. There is certainly nothing in- 
herently objectionable in the passages in question—no a@ priord reason 
for supposing them to be secondary. If there were, we may be sure that 
Hertel would not have failed to point it out. On the contrary, T’s ending 
is so abrupt that it seems to me to indicate a probable loss of something. 
No other tantra ends with a verse spoken by one character in the story 
to another, as does T« here. To me it seems clear that TS and Pa pre- 
serve parts of the original here, which T« has lost. By the way, since 
these parts are found only in Tf and Pa, they would prove nothing for 
“KK,” archetype of all the non-T versions. Let Hertel not reply that the 
omission of these parts in the Ur-SP, the Jain versions, and the Br versions 
is an indication that they were not original! For according to his own 
theory, since they belonged to “K,” they were found in the archetype 
of those versions, and should be found in them just as much as if they 
belonged to the original Paficatantra, as I believe they did. The fact is, 
of course, that the Ur-SP and Br versions are shortened as usual, and 
hence omit these passages (principally verses); while the Jain versions 
have lost them in their radical reconstruction of Book IV, especially the 
last part of it, which bears no resemblance to the original. 

9. The verse SP IIT. 32; Reconstruction III vs 44; and preceding 
prose.—This is the last of the cases which, so far as I have been able 


112 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


to discover in a careful study of Hertel’s writings, he advances as proof. 
of his “K.” (His latest discussion of it is found in ZDMG. 69, 289 ff.) It 

is also one of the most complicated of all the cases, and needs very 

careful discussion. I shall first state the facts and probabilities of the case 

as they appear to me, upon earnest consideration of all the evidence and 

of Hertel’s arguments. After this I shall speak of Hertel’s divergent views. 

The passage occurs in the story of the Elephant, Hares, and Moon 

(III. 3), at the point where® the clever hare first addresses the elephant- 

king. Being invited to state his business the hare begins thus, according 

to my reconstruction (III § 64, middle, and vs 44): 


sasaka tha: janaty eva bhavan, yatharthavadino ditasya na dosah karan- 
iyah, (ditamukha hi rajanah sarva eva. uktanm ca:) 
uddhrtesv api Sastresu dito vadati nanyatha 
te vat yathoktavaktaro na vadhyah prthivibhuja. 44. 


“You know already, Sir, that a messenger speaking according to his in- 
structions must not be blamed. (For kings, all of them, use messengers 
as their mouthpieces. And it is said:) 

Even when weapons are raised [to fight], a messenger speaks not other- 
wise {than as instructed]. Since they speak according to instructions, of 
course they must not be slain by a king.” 

As usual in my reconstruction, italics indicate what is not verbally 
certain in the original; parentheses enclose what may not have been in 
the original at all, even in general sense. 

Of the prose which I quoted before the verse, no Sanskrit version 
except T’ and Pn has a trace (beyond the words sasaka dha or equivalent). 
The words jandty ...karaniyah are supported by T (both subrecensions) 
and, it seems to me, by Pa. The words diitamukha ... uktam ca are found 
only in Pn, and are therefore enclosed in parentheses; there is reason 
to believe, however, that T3 at least originally had something of the sort, 
tho it is hopelessly corrupt in our mss.; and Pa may have had an equi- 
valent. The vs is found, as a verse, in SP, H, and Pn; correspondents 
also in Pa; aud Tf has a corrupt equivalent in prose, on which see 
below. The variants are as follows. 

jandaty ...karaniyah: no variant in T or Pn. Sy has no equivalent, 
but all offshoots of the Arabic agree in having what seems to be a clear 
correspondent. E. g. KF p. 136, 1.17: “and be not offended at the words 
of messengers (JCap et nulla est culpa nuncii), because a messenger is 
not to be blamed for what he is ordered to say, for as he hears so does 
he repeat the message,” &ce. 

dutamukha ...uktam ca, only Pn, except that T8 has, corruptly, uktam 
ca |first!], data hy (mss. corruptly dutady or dywta hy); then follows the 
equivalent of the verse, wddhrtesv &c. This phrase may be represented in 
the Pahlavi versions, which as often mingle the next vs with the pre- 
ceding prose; cf. the passage just quoted from KF. 

Vs 44: in Tf prose, see below; not in Ta. a, SP, H udyatesv (T with 
text, see below). b (no equivalent in T), Pn handhuvargavadhesv api; SP, 


Archetype “K”: SP III. 32, Reconstruction III vs 44 113 


H text. ¢ (ef. T below), Pn parusdny api jalpanto, SP ed. te yathartha- 
pravaktarah (SPa te vai yatharthavaktaro), H Pet. te yatharthasya vaktaro, 
H Mii. sadaivavadhyabhavena. d, Pn vadhyad dita na bhibhuja, SP prthi- 
vyam prthivibhujam (SP« as text), H Pet. py avadhyad hi bhavadrsam, H 
Mii. yatharthasya (ef. c!) hi vacakah.—Tf for vs: uddhrtesv api sastresu (so 
mss.) yathoktavaktdrah tesam antevasino ’py avadhyd iti.—Sy: daB ein Bot- 
schafter, auch wenn er in einer schlimmen Sache kommt [= pada al, 
weder getétet noch gefangen genommen werden darf. Ar, cf. Joel p. 77, 
1. 26: quand méme il prononce des paroles méchantes (so also other Ar 
versions, instead of “wenn er in einer schlimmen Sache kommt’), il n’est 
que le messager qui ne peut pas commettre un pécher, puisqu'il doit 
s’'acquitter de ce qu’on lui a ordonné de dire. 

Now, I should be the last to claim that the original form of this 
passage, and particularly the verse, is clear in all details. But (unhappily!) 
it is not unique in this respect. The variations between the several versions, 
while more markt than usual, are by no means unparalleled. here are 
other passages—other verses even—which vary as widely in the several 
versions, and yet which no one would suspect of being unoriginal as a 
whole—tho there may be serious question as to some of the details of 
the original, as there are in this case. 

Probably Hertel would have been slow to make this claim on such a 
basis alone. Of course the fact that the verse is lacking in T« prejudices 
him, because of his views of the exclusive position of that subrecension, 
against its originality. But he has made an interesting discovery about 
the T$ reading, which he considers a striking confirmation of his view. 
He notes that there is apparently some relation between the Tf reading 
and a passage from the Kautiliya Arthasastra, p. 30 towards bottom, 
where a messenger is instructed to say, if the king to whom he is sent 
gets angry: 

ditamukha vai rajanas tvath canye ca. tasmad uddhrtesy api sastresu 
yathoktarh vaktaras tesam antavasayino py avadhyah; kim aiiga brah- 
manah. parasyaitad vakyam, esa dutadharma iti. 

The similarity of the Tf reading to this indicates that it is a garbled quo- 
tation of the Kaut. This seems confirmed especially by the word antevdsino, 
which occurs only in Tf, and whose sense would hardly be guest from 
its context. The Kaut. passage seems to show that it means “ Candalas.” 

Hertel’s theory is that “K” interpolated, probably as a marginal note, 
an abbreviated reference to this Kaut. passage. He thinks this marginal 
note began ditddy uddhrtesv api ete., and that datady means diita®, and. 
is an abbreviation for the words ditamukha to tasmad incl., after which 
the note proceeded to give (in fragmentary form) the rest of the quota- 
tion. This garbled quotation of K, he thinks, was taken over bodily in 
TS, whereas Pn and Ur-SP, or their respective archetypes, tried to emend 
it and make sense out of it, both of them making part of it into a verse, 
but independently of each other. 

I submit the following as a theory which seems at least as likely 
to be the true explanation of the facts. The original Paficatantra read 

Edgerton, Pancatantra II. 8 


114 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


as my reconstruction reads (with the possible exceptions indicated by the 
use of parentheses and italics therein). The redactor of T, being reminded | 
of the Kaut. passage by the language of the passage he found in his 
original, substituted the one for the other, perhaps conceiving that his 
original made an attempt to quote the Kaut. and had become corrupt. 
But the T reading itself became corrupt in tradition (as-it is in the T'S mas.), 
and for this reason, since it makes no sense as it stands, the T’« copyist 
omitted it. There is, in my opinion, plenty of evidence that the copyist 
of the T« archetype did this freely with other passages which he found 
in a corrupt form in his predecessor (see below, p. 122 f.). 

Hertel says that the introductory uktam ca (Tf, Pn) specifically indi- 
cates that the following passage is a quotation. I reply: wktam ca ge- 
nerally indicates nothing but that a verse follows. The verse may or may 
not be quoted from another source; at any rate most of the verses, which 
are so constantly introduced by this same phrase, belonged to the original 
Paficatantra, even tho they need not necessarily be supposed to have been 
composed by its author. The phrase uktam ca therefore does not necessarily 
imply that the following was a quotation from an n outside source —still 
less that it was not in the Ur-Pafic. 

Hertel thinks the form of the verse, as the alleged “K” texts have 
it, is poor, and finds in this a confirmation of his theory that it is un- 
original, Aside from the fact that there are (as Hertel himself has pointed 
out) laxities and imperfections in other verses, indubitably parts of the 
original, I cannot agree with Hertel as to the supposedly poor quality 
of this verse. He quotes the reading of SP« in padas ed as °vaktaro 
avadhyah°, with hiatus between the padas. But only one ms. has this 
reading, according to his statement! The others read na vadhyadh; and 
none of the other “K” texts show the hiatus. Evidently Hertel would 
not regard the reading with the hiatus as the original one, were he not 
over-anxious to make the “KK” version seem poor.—His other criticism 
of the verse is directed at the fact that in pada b we have the singular 
dito, while in ed the plural te... na vadhyah is found. I see nothing 
difficult in this. The word dito is a generalizing singular: “a [= any 
and every] messenger speaks as instructed.” That this is then resumed 
by a plural, “they” =“ messengers” in general, is surely a simple enuf 
change of construction and hardly seems to me to call for comment. I 
think no one would find fault with this if he were not looking for trouble. 


As a positive objection to Hertel’s theory I would advance this. I know 
-of no case in all Sanskrit literature in which a “ quotation” is made in 
such a strange way as Hertel assumes for his “K.” In the first place, 
can adi be used alone for iti (or ity@di) in this sense? I do not know an 
instance. In the second place, when the first word or pratika of a passage, 
followed by iti (rather than ddi), is used by way of quotation, the text 
does not then follow it up with a group of words taken out of the middle 
of the quoted passage! In other words, a Hindu intending to quote 


ditamukha vai rajanas tyarh einye ca. tasmad uddhrtesy api sastresu &e. 


Archetype “K”: SP HII. 32, Reconstruction III vs 44 115 


might possibly have quoted it by diitddi (rather, diteti!) alone; but he 
would surely not then have added wddhrtesv api ete.! In fact, since ditady 
(or ditety) would have been insufficient to identify the passage, he would 
have quoted more from the beginning of the passage, as e. g. dita- 
mukha vat rajana ity (addi) or the like. This seems to me to indicate that 
Hertel is wrong in accepting the reading of the T ms. z (ditady) at this 
place, and that the other ms. R, which reads dyita hy, has the correct 
reading except that of course ditd should be read for dyitd. (On the ms. R 
see below, p. 124 ff.) This seems to me to get further confirmation from 
Purnabhadra’s reading, diitamukha hi &e. If we assume that Pn represents 
the original Paficatantra in this, the resemblance to the Kaut. passage 
becomes still more striking, and it becomes even easier to understand how 
the T redactor substituted a quotation of that passage for the following 
verse. Pn surely cannot have got his reading from any such text as the 
T3 mss. present, by a “ gliickliche Besserung”’, as Hertel assumes. That is 
really too much to attribute to a Hindu redactor, or any other human 
being! It would be literally a miracle for a later redactor, starting with 
such an abbreviation or garbling of a quotation as is found in Tf, to 
restore it and come so close to the original. 

It might be urged that the general language of the SP-Pn verse, and 
especially of the preceding prose in Pn, is so close to the Kaut. passage 
as to indicate that somehow or other it must go back to an original 
quotation of that passage. But note that even in Ta—and therefore in 
the original Pafic. according to Hertel—occur the words: yandty eva bhavan 
yatharthavadino ditasya na dosah karaniyah. These words are also close 
to the words of the Kaut. passage; but hardly close enuf to indicate a 
direct quotation from it. Hertel himself does not assume that it is that. 
As a matter of fact the principle laid down in the passage is, as Hertel 
rightly says, a commonplace of niéz-literature. And the only version whose 
words are so close to Kaut. as to make it seem clearly an attempt at a 
quotation is (again I agree with Hertel) Tf. I disagree with Hertel only 
in that I regard this quotation of TS as a secondary substitute for the 
original Pafic. reading, and further in that I regard To’s omission of the 
passage as proving nothing but the fact that its archetype (namely, a 
version agreeing here with Tf) was corrupt at the point. 

It seems to me unlikely that SP and Pn, or their archetypes, could 
have composed the verse in question independently, as Hertel assumes. 
It is true that their readings differ widely. But there are also contained 
in them striking verbal correspondences, not all of which can be explained 
as coming from the original form of the quotation (note the ending of 
the last pada, prthivibhuja: bhabhuja). As I have said, verses whose 
originality is unquestioned and unquestionable differ at times just as 
widely as does this verse in the readings of various recensions. 

Hertel, adopting a suggestion made to him by Jolly, would see in the 
Arabie versions of the stanza, which read e. g. Joel quand méme il pro- 
nonce des paroles méchantes, an equivalent of Pn’s pada ec, parusany 
api jalpanto. It seems to me much more likely éhat the Arabic has here 

S* 


116 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


misunderstood or distorted the Pahlavi which is represented in the Old 
Syriac by “auch wenn er in einer schlimmen Sache kommt”. This phrase 
seems to me to represent pada a of the original uddhrtesv api sastresu. 
It is a “schlimme Sache” when hostilities have opened. Of course the 
rendering is not exact, even in the Syriac; but all students of the Syriac 
will, I am sure, agree that it is no more remote from the original than 
the Pahlavi versions frequently—indeed, constantly—are. 

To sum up: it seems to me that my theory of this passage is at least 
as likely an explanation of the facts as Hertel’s, considering the passage 
by itself. Now, if Hertel were right in supposing that he has absolutely 
proved his theory as to the general relationship of the versions, then 
it would be fair and proper to give weight to that theory in evaluating 
the evidence on this passage too. I hope I have shown by this time how 
far he has come from proving this. While, therefore, I do not say, in 
Hertel’s style, that my explanation is the only conceivable one for this 
admittedly troublesome and difficult passage, I think I have made it clear 
that Hertel’s contrary explanation is certainly not the only conceivable one. 

Summary and conclusion as to the “archetype K.”’—The number 
of cases which Hertel advances in proof of his ‘ K” is some- 
what larger» than the number which he finds for ‘“t,” or for 
his ‘‘N-W” (see the following pages). It is still far from large 
enuf to prove the point, even if the cases were individually 
sound (cf. p. 91f. above). As a matter of fact not a single 
one of them is compelling. Only in two instances (Nos. 4 and 9) 
does he make out what could be called even a plausible prima 
facie case. And in both of those cases I have suggested other 
alternatives which are certainly possible, and which to me seem 
at least as likely to be right a priori as Hertel’s views; while 
a consideration of the versions as a whole leads me to believe 
that they are far more likely to be right. In all the remaining 
instances, Hertel does not even make out a plausible case. In 
every one of them the reading of the ‘‘K”’ versions has been 
shown to be at least as good as the T reading, and therefore, 
since the T reading is found only in one version, more likely 
to be original. In some instances the T mss. agree with the 
supposed ‘‘K” versions, thus making assurance doubly sure, 
as it seems to me. In one case (No. 1), of which Hertel makes 
much, the T version has been shown on internal evidence to 
be secondary and corrupt; it is not even consistent with itself, 
and it has borrowed from another place in its own text a 
sentence on which Hertel’s argument is largely based.—In 
Chapter VII, below, & shall present a large collection of cases 


The supposed archetype ‘ N-W ” Pit 


in which I believe that T is secondary, as shown by agreements 
of other versions. This collection may be understood as an 
additional argument, on the positive side, against Hertel’s hypo- 
thesis of “ K,’’ which implies an exceptional and well-nigh ex- 
clusive position for T among Pafcatantra versions. 


III. The supposed archetype “ N-W’”’. 


What is meant by the supposed archetype ‘ N-W ” ?—Accord- 
ing to Hertel, this “N-W” was an offshoot of ‘‘K” (see the 
preceding pages), from which Pa, the Ur-SP (with N and H), 
and Spl (with Pn) are descended. In other words, it is an arche- 
type of all the ““K” versions except the Brhatkatha versions, 
So and Ks, which are independent of it. This “ N-W” rests 
on even weaker grounds than ‘‘t” and “K,” if that be possible, 
That is, there is even less alleged evidence for it. So far as 
I can see, Hertel makes this assumption on the basis of pre- 
cisely two passages (!), in which he finds common secondary 
features in these versions. 


1. The Sesame story again.—One concerns the Sesame story (II. 2), 
mentioned above, page 106 ff. It was noted there that Somadeva is extreme- 
ly brief in his account of the last part of the story, practically omitting 
the account of the attempted barter. Now Hertel’s theory, more ingenious 
than probable, is that Somadeva’s archetype had a lacuna at this place. 
(He.does not say how he interprets Ksemendra, which summarizes, no 
more briefly than usual, the part supposed to have been omitted in 
Somadeyva’s archetype—which was presumably Ksemendra’s archetype 
too.) This lacuna Hertel supposes to have occurred in “K.” It was filled 
in, secondarily, and incorrectly (with “huskt for unhuskt” sesame, ef. 
above), in an offshoot of “K,” called by Hertel “N-W;” and from this 
‘““N-W” are descended the Ur-SP, Pa, and Spl, while So (and Ks?) come 
from the unrestored “K” with its lacuna. 

I would observe, first, that Somadeva is almost or quite as brief in 
many other places as he is at this place. I am sure that Hertel would 
never have thot of assuming a lacuna here if it had not suited his special 
purpose. Secondly, and much more important: SP shows, in the parts 
of the story covered by the supposed “lacuna,” markt verbal correspon- 
dences with 'T. (For examples see page 107 above; for others, see my 
Crit. App.) Now, according to Hertel, SP in this part goes back to a 
secondary restoration, made in ‘‘ N-W,” of this “lacuna.” How then does 
the language of SP happen to indicate that it goes back, in spots at 
least, to the same literal original as I’? Even the proper name Kaman- 
daki oceurs in SP in the place supposed to have been lost and restored. 


118 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


Unless we assume that the restorer copied from a version of the original 
(in which ease the result would be the same as if there had never been 
a lacuna), I do not see how this would be possible. 

My own views on the Sesame story are summarized above. Whether 
they are right or wrong in general, in any case it seems to me that 
Hertel’s “lacuna” and subsequent “restoration” are alike imaginary. 

2. Story of Brahman and Rogues, II]. 5.—So far as I can discover, 
this is the only other passage adyanst by Hertel in support of his ‘“ N-W ”. 
See his Tantr. Einl. p. 32f., and SP Ein]. p. XX XVIff. Here he assumes 
a lacuna in the archetype of SP (N, H), Spl (Pn), and Pa, while T and 
So go back to a complete text. 

It is necessary here to distinguish between what Hertel has sound 
philological grounds for asserting, and what he merely conjectures on 
purely subjective and imaginary grounds. Unfortunately he states both 
with equal positiveness and assurance. 

That the manuscripts of SP all go back to a manuscript which had 
a lacuna in the middle of this story, can hardly be doubted if we assume 
the correctness of Hertel’s quotations from them (SP p. XXXIXf.). The 
lacuna is plainly there in many of them; in the others it is filled out 
in various absurd ways, showing no relation whatever to the original. 
So far, so good; SP clearly had a lacuna here. 

But on what grounds does Hertel assume that this lacuna goes back 
to an archetype of SP, N, H, Pa, and Spl? Solely on the ground of the 
variation in the nwmber of rogues undertaking to trick the brahman. 
Namely: in all the versions (except the fragmentary mss. of SP) the brah- 
man is addrest by the rogues three times, one after another. But whereas 
in H, Jn, and Pa (on Pa see below) only one of the rogues addresses 
him at a time, in So and T we find him addrest the first time by one 
rogue, the second time by two, and the third time by three, so that six 
rogues appear in all. Ks agrees with T' and So, except that the third time 
it says “others” (plural, not dual), instead of specifically “three”. 

I agree with Hertel that the striking accord in the numbers between 
T and So and Ks is a strong indication that the original read as they 
do. It is the sort of featuree which could not well be supposed to have 
been invented independently by several redactors. But when Hertel seeks 
to bring the simplification in the numbers found in the other recensions 
into relation with the lacuna in SP, it seems to me that he becomes 
again wholly subjective and inconclusive, if not absurd. That Pa and Jn 
and H have three individuals instead of three groups (of one, two, and 
three respectively—if I may be pardoned for speaking of a “ group” of 
one), as in 'T’ and So, is surely no matter for surprise. It ought not even 
to call for comment, The brahman was addrest only three times; why— 
say the Pa, Jn, and H redactors—should there be more than three 
speakers? The climactic arrangement of the numbers is exactly the sort 
of trifling detail which we constantly find later redactors altering, either 
carelessly, or deliberately (because there seemed to be no reason for it). 
The only reason, indeed, which Hertel can think of for its being used 


The supposed archetype ‘“N-W” 119 


in the original is that perhaps the author wanted to give examples of 
parallel Sanskrit forms in the singular, dual, and plural! The details of 
the entire passage in Spl and Pa (especially the Old Spanish, which is 
here very close to the original) and Hitopadesga are given substantially 
as fully and as well as in T; and—this is important—in strikingly similar 
language, for the most part. See my Crit. App., which shows nnmistakable 
evidence that these versions go back to the same original,—even Spl, tho 
it (as very often) has peculiar variations of its own. How do they happen 
to tell the story in so nearly the same terms if there was a lacuna in- 
the archetype of all of them at this point? Contrast the handling of the 
story in the mss. of SP, which have really filled in a genuine lacuna 
(still present in many of them). They are utterly different from each 
other and from the other versions.—It seems to me scarcely believable 
that anyone could base such sweeping conclusions on this trifling point 
of the variation in numbers. 

Hertel (J. c.) makes much of the fact that there is some variation in 
the number of rogues in some of the offshoots of the Pahlavi (in Old 
Syriac four, in some offshoots of the Arabic only two). He actually 
seems to argue from this that the number varied in the Pahlavi itself! 
As if the Pahlavi translator (for Hertel does not question that the Syriac 
and Arabic, at least, go back to a single version, the Pahlavi) were 
uncertain how many rogues to mention, and perhaps told the story 
differently, using different numbers! Or did the Pahlavi have the alleged 
“lacuna” still present in its actual text? If so, how comes it that the 
Old Spanish (and other Pahlavi offshoots) have the clearest possible 
evidence of literal translation from the Sanskrit in the passage? Where 
was the lacuna—between what two points, exactly?—The variation in 
numbers in the Pahlavi is a support of my contention, not of Hertel’s. 
It shows how easy it was for later versions to vary independently on 
such a trifling detail as this. Pahlavi certainly had some definite number 
—whether four, three, or two (as a matter of fact, unquestionably three); 
yet its descendants vary. Note also that the variation in the descendants 
of the Pahlavi goes hand in hand with a variation in the number of times 
the brahman is addrest. The rogues go singly; one rogue, one approach 
to the brahman. In T and So, on the other hand, as in all other Sanskrit 
versions (barring the corrupt SP), the brahman is addrest exactly three 
times, neither more nor less.—That SP’s corruption originated later than 
the Ur-SP is proved by the Hitopadesa, which not only has precisely 
three successive approaches to the brahman, but also contains some clear 
verbal inheritances from the original in the place where the SP mss. 
have their lacuna. 

Summary and conclusion.—To sum up, there is not a trace of 
evidence which makes in any degree likely Hertel’s assump- 
tion of the archetype ‘“N-W.” He has produced only two 
alleged pieces of evidence; and neither one has any weight 


whatsoever. 


120 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


IV. Relations of Tantrakhyayika a and 8, and of the 
mss. of T. 


Hertel’s view that Ta is more original than 8.—According 
to Hertel, the subrecension Ta is ‘far more original” than 
TZ (Tantr. Einl. p. 69, and passim). Apparently to him the 
conclusive, and almost the only, evidence of the general un- 
originality of T$ consists in the alleged fact to which allusion 
has been made repeatedly, that Tf contains many verses, 
some prose sentences, at least one entire story, and not a few 
variant readings of individual words, in common with the “K” 
versions, and at variance with Ta. In most such cases Hertel 
believes that Ta is the original, and that Tf has inserted 
(or substituted) readings taken from a “K” codex. Hertel 
admits, however, that when the two subrecensions vary, it is 
not always T@ which is inferior. Not infrequently he finds it 
necessary to adopt the TS reading rather than the To one 
in his text. And he recognizes the interpolation of one story, 
the Treacherous Bawd, in Ta (as III. 5). In short, his view 
may be summarized thus. Hach of the two subrecensions contains 
some correct readings and some- secondary readings which the 
other has not; but the former are far more common in Taz, 
the latter in T 8. Each also contains secondary interpolations 
which the other has not, but T@ has far more than Ts. And 
when we find a passage in T@ that is lacking in Ts, the 
presumption always is that it is an interpolation in the former, 
not an omission in the latter. This presumption is in no way 
weakened if we find the “ interpolation’? present in other 
Paneatantra versions; for this simply means that T @ inter- 
polated the passage from a ‘‘K” codex. 

The present writer’s views.—My own view of this subject 
is almost the reverse of Hertel’s. I find no evidence that in 
the slightest degree tends to show contamination from an out- 
side Paneatantra version in T%; and it seems to me that such 
contamination is extremely unlikely. In every single case in 
which T'S agrees with the consensus of the so-called ‘ K”’ 
versions, I believe that this agreement is inherited from the 
original Paneatantra, and that it is Tx which is secondary. 
There is not one such ease in which the T@ and so-called 
“KK” reading is in any way inferior to the reading of T a; 


Alleged interpolations in Tf from “Kk” 12] 


and there are not a few cases in which it seems to me that 
it is superior. (Of course, in many cases either reading makes 
good sense.) All the supposed “interpolations” of T@, when 
supported by the other versions, belong to the original, and 
have been omitted in Ta. As to minor variants, variae lectiones 
of individual words, my disagreement with Hertel is not so 
important. Here again, when a reading of either subrecension 
is supported by the consensus of outside versions, I believe 
that it is always original. It is not by any means always, tho 
it is more often, T@ which is thus supported. Each of the 
subrecensions preserves at different times better readings than 
the other. As a matter of fact the two agree pretty closely 
on verbal details. Generally speaking the variations are not 
markt, aside from obvious manuscript blunders.—Of Hertel’s 
ideas as to the relation of the individual manuscripts of T, 
and his editing of the text, I shall speak later. 


Alleged interpolations in TB from a “K” codex.—I have 
already indicated that I consider Hertel’s ‘“K”’ imaginary, and 
have stated my reasons for not accepting his interpretation 
of various passages in which he thinks the other versions are 
inferior to Ta. As to the passages which Hertel thinks are 
interpolations from “K” in T$; the single story which he 
ealls a ‘‘ certain interpolation from a K-codex” (Tantr. Einl. 
p. 67), namely the Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief (III. 6 
of the reconstruction), has been considered by me on page 63, 
note 6. I have there shown the fallacious nature of Hertel’s 
objections to it. I think there is no doubt that it belonged to 
the original Pancatantra. There are in T8 (and partly in Tz 
too) anumber of stories which I agree with Hertel in denying 
to the original Pancatantra (p. 74 ff.); but there is no reason 
to suppose that they were borrowed from any other Paiica- 
tantra version, and I understand that Hertel does not suppose 
that.—As to the verses in T and other versions, but not in 
To (a list, not quite complete I think, is given by Hertel, 
Tantr. inl. p. 67f.), it is searcely possible to argue about 
most of them. In the nature of the case there can not, usually, 
be any compelling ground for regarding them as either original 
ov unoriginal (unless one accepts as proof of their originality 
the agreement of the other versions with T%, which in my 


122 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelatiouship of versions 


opinion és a sufficient proof, but not in Hertel’s opinion). For 
it is easy both to insert and to omit these proverbial stanzas, 
without otherwise disturbing the text. Consequently it is hard 
to detect definite signs of either their insertion or their omission. 
—The same is partly true of the various prose passages found 
in T@ (and other versions), but not in Ta. Sometimes Hertel 
thinks he can see proof, in the context, of the unoriginality 
of such passages. I have noted above several such cases and 
indicated my reasons for not accepting his conclusions. Some- 
times I think, on the other hand, that I can see reasons for 
preferring the longer version, as in the case of the ending of 
Book IV, where Ta breaks off abruptly with a verse spoken 
by the ape to the crocodile, with no proper conclusion such 
as all the other tantras have, and such as T ? has here. But 
such preferences would usually be largely subjective; and I 
should seldom be prepared to claim that they were absolutely 
conclusive (e. g. as regards Book IV and its ending, I recognize 
that conceivably the original author might have chosen to end 
this single book in such an abrupt fashion, contrary to his 
usual custom). I think, however, that it is perhaps worth noting — 
that in quite a number of cases where Ta fails to show corres- 
pondents to a passage found in Té (and other versions), we 
find that the Tf tradition is corrupt, or at least unoriginal. 
This seems to me significant. It suggests that the Ta subre- 
cension may possibly go back to an archetype which contained 
the passages in question, but in a distorted or corrupt form, 
as they are found in T@; and this may be just the reason 
for the omissions. I have shown, for instance, that Tz’s omission 
of the stories of the Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief, and 
of the Talking Cave, may not improbably be connected with 
such distortions in the text of TS where these stories are 
introduced (see pages 65, n., and 77). Similar cases (for the 
details see my Crit. App.) oceur in IT § 234 (lacuna indicated 
by space in T@ mss.; nothing in T«), II § 236 (T @ secondary 
and apparently corrupt; nothing in Ta), III § 25 (lacuna 
indicated by space in T@ mss.; nothing in Ta), II] § 64 
(corrupt in T (, nothing in T 2, see above, p. 114), III § 245 
(see page 175 below; this § omitted in Ta in an attempt to 


e 


rationalize a passage corrupted by the omission of the preceding 


: fae . : 92 
Minor variations in the language of Ta and § 123 


4 Ale) 


§ 244), IIL § 278 (name of frog-king, jalapadda, corrupt in Té, 
omitted in Ta and in one Tf ms.; Hertel, T ed. p. 139, 1. 12, 
note, quite rightly: ‘Das Fehlen des Wortes in « R diirfte 
seinen Grund in der in pz tiberlieferten Korruptel haben’’). 
In some stanzas, also, which are found in other recensions, it 
is probable that corruptions in T8 are responsible for the 
omission of the stanza in Ta. Thus III vss 16 and 17 are 
preserved only in fragmentary form (one half of each) in T@, 
tho the entire stanzas are found in Pahlavi; they are wholly 
omitted in Ta. I believe that III vs 44 is a similar case; 
here T$ appears to have substituted a prose quotation, in a 
corrupt form, for the stanza; see p. 111 ff. Less certain cases 
are III vss 41, 42, and 61, in which Tf has minor corruptions, 
and which are omitted in Ta.—In the note just quoted from 
Hertel, T ed. p. 1389, on 1. 12, he seems to recognize the possi- 
bility that omissions in Ta may be due to corruptions in Té, 
thus implying that Ta goes back to an archetype which con- 
tained at least some of the corruptions now found in T%. It 
seems to me that he would have done well to allow greater 
scope to this possibility. 

Minor variations in-the language of Ta and $.—These are 
fairly numerous in the aggregate, tho comparatively of minor 
importance. Most of them, I should say, are the sort of petty 
variants which may and do occur independently in different 
manuscripts. So it happens that we occasionally find both read- 
ings, of T« and @, supported by different outside recensions or 
subrecensions. (A few examples are listed by me AJP. 36. 275 ff.) 
In most of these cases it is out of the question to suppose direct 
connexion in both cases; one or the other reading must have 
been changed independently. On the other hand, when the out- 
side versions unanimously agree with either Ta or T% against 
the other, it seems to me fairly certain that the disagreeing 
version is secondary. And indeed it seems to me that this is 
usually the only criterion by which one can decide with assu- 
rance whether Ta or T@ is more original. By this criterion 
sometimes the one, sometimes the other is supported. It seems 
to me hardly possible to lay down a general law favoring either 
one. Hertel also admits this in practice, and not infrequently 
adopts the @ reading in his text. But, as I have said, I think 


124 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


he exaggerates the value of «. In particular I think he is always 
wrong when he prefers the reading of « to that of @ supported 
by the consensus of outside versions. 


Supposed ‘attempted corrections,’ in TB, of Ta readings.— 
In a few cases Hertel (see especially ZDMG. 59. 5 ff., also 
passim in his edition and translation) thinks he finds evidence 
that T@ has attempted to correct (usually without success) a 
reading found in Ta. His arguments on these points seem to 
me as subjective and illusory as those by which he seeks to 
prove his “t,’“ K,” and “N-W.” -In- most’ of -the” cases*E 
find no reason for supposing that Ts is superior; and in some 
I find reasons for the contrary opinion. H. g. our II § 204 
(ZDMG. 59. 6); the negative (na vartate) of 6 is supported by 
SP and Pn; it is my opinion that the « mss. have omitted it 
by mere error. The verb is put before the subject for emphasis, 
and its position does not necessarily indicate a question. In 
our IIT § 265 the name of the serpent, Mandaviga, is found 
only in the single ms. R of. @. Hertel (Translation, p. 131, n. 1) 
says “durch Konjektur ergiinzt”’. The identical name is found 
in the same place in the other recensions. Is it likely that the 
scribe of the ms. R would invent by conjecture a name for 
the serpent and hit on the form which the other versions have? 
In fact the name occurs below in the other 8 mss. and it seems 
to me obvious that R has correctly preserved the original name 
at the place where it first occurs, whereas the other mss. have 
omitted it by accident.—In our II § 169 Hertel (cf. his Trans- 
lation, p. 82, n. 2) says that @’s reading (udyuktanam dhanam 
bhogah kva yasyantitt) is “ evidently a mistaken correction ” 
of the “ corrupt” reading of « (udyu® kva yanti dhanabhoga iti), 
which he emends to udyu° hy dydnti ete. Neither « nor $ can 
be called “corrupt; ’’ Hertel has simply failed to understand 
them. They both mean “Treasures and pleasures never leave 
the strenuous;”’ literally, ‘‘ of the strenuous, where do [or, will] 
treasures and pleasures go?” (rhetorical question, do [or, will] 
not go anywhere). No emendation is called for. Kither a or @ 
may be the original reading; one is simply a paraphrase of 
the other, and the outside versions happen to give us no help 
in deciding between them. Since @ means exactly the same thing 
as x, except that it has a future tense instead of a present, 


The manuscripts of Tantrakhyayika 125 


I fail to see how Hertel can eall it a ‘ correction” of 2, in 
any case. 


The manuscripts of Tantrakhyayika.—In the last paragraph 
I noted a passage in which I believe that the ms. R (of 8) has 
preserved the original reading, alone of all T mss. I think 
that this is not an isolated instance. While I should not say 
and do not believe that R is in all cases the best ms. of T, 
I think it is much more important than Hertel assumes. Hertel 
believes that it is derived (not immediately) from the ms. g, 
and that when it has the correct reading against the other 
mss., this is due to “ gliickliche Besserung” (his favorite way 
of explaining facts which spoil his theories). He admits that 
these ‘‘ gliickliche Besserungen” of R are not infrequent. (Cf. 
T ed, p. XVII: ‘“R sucht durchgehends den Text zu bessern 
und hat 6fters das Richtige getroffen.”) Indeed, they are so 
frequent that he assumes (/. c.) an imaginary manuscript ¢, 
standing between z and R, and immediate source of the latter, 
in which some errors were corrected, possibly with the aid of 
other manuscripts. [In € waren wohl einzelne Fehler (nach 
anderen Hss.?) gebessert.”] Yet he apparently ignores this 
suggestion of his own, that R gets at least some of its superior 
readings from manuscripts lying outside of our materials. For 
later (op. cit. p. XXIII) he flatly declares that ‘‘ apparently or 
really superior readings” of R “have only the value of con- 
jectures.”’ And it is on this principle that he acts in constituting 
his text; even when R has a reading supported by the consensus 
of the other recensions (and often, it seems to me, by the sense), 
he very rarely and grudgingly allows himself to be guided by 
it. This is because he thinks he has proved (op. cit. p. XVI) 
that R is dependent on z paleographically. Even if he be right 
in this as to certain places, that would not prove that R is 
always dependent on z. Not infrequently a Hindu ms., for 
one reason or another, is copied from different archetypes in 
different parts of the text. This is the case with Hertel’s ms. p, 
which belongs to Ta in the first part but to T$ in the second 
part,—the shift occurring, according to Hertel, right in the middle 
of a sentence, and with no change in the writing or other idi- 
eation of any sort. How then can Hertel be sure, even if RK 
is dependent on z in spots, that it is not independent of it in 


126 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions 


other spots? Nay, he has himself suggested that it 7s so—that its 
archetype (the imaginary ¢) “‘ corrected” the text ‘‘ according to 
other manuscripts ”’ (with a question-mark, to be sure). He should 
therefore have given more weight to R’s readings, especially 
when they are supported by other versions. I have little faith 
in Hertel’s standing explanation of “ gliickliche Besserungen.” 

Of Hertel’s general discussion of the relations of his 'T mss. 
to each other, I must say that while it sounds extremely im- 
pressive at first, it fails to impress on closer acquaintance. Its 
elaborate and artificial scheme, including half a dozen or more 
imaginary manuscripts, is built up largely by a process which 
can best be described as “ hearing the grass grow.” It is, in 
my opinion, impossible to set up such sweeping generalizations 
on the basis of a few minute (and often very questionable) 
data, For one thing, many of the ‘“‘common corruptions” on 
which Hertel’s scheme largely depends are not corruptions at 
all, but good readings, which Hertel has merely failed to under- 
stand. Hertel is very much too free with emendations; see the list 
of erroneous emendations in T’s text given below, Chapter IX. 
i. g., im one paragraph (paragraph 15 on p. XXI of T ed.). 
he groups some seven or eight ‘ corruptions,” of which three 
—the only ones which are found in all the manuscripts—are 
not corruptions at all; Hertel’s emendations are false. (‘These 
are T p. 61, 1.12, our I § 585, where Hertel wrongly inserts 
ninda; p. 74, 1.14, where he wrongly inserts Sesam suguptarr, 
ef. JAOS. 38. 278; p. 110, 1. 12, where he wrongly inserts aho, 
instead of reading with abhinihita sandhi ’samo°.) This may 
serve aS an example of the insecure basis on which he builds 
his elaborate but flimsy superstructure. Until more conclusive 
evidence to the contrary is produced than has yet been’ offered 
by Hertel, we may assume, I think, that the agreement of any 
manuscript of T with the consensus of outside versions gives 
us what is in all probability the original reading. And I find 
a considerable number of cases in which such readings are 
found in R alone. At the same time it seems also to be true 
that RK has a number of individual: corruptions. The precise 
genealogy of this manuscript will probably never be determined. 


Summary and conclusion.—It cannot be said that Ta as a 
whole is “far superior” to Tg. The reverse would hardly be 


Summary and conclusion on manuscripts of T 127 


the case either; but it seems to me that T% is at least a rather 
more complete representative of the T tradition, and probably 
in general a better one, than Tx. The texts of Ta and T are 
closely related but independent offshoots of the T archetype. 
Kach omits some original:features which are contained in the 
other (but such omissions are more numerous in Te than in 
Tf). Hach also contains some secondary additions. Neither 
omissions nor additions are very numerous in either one. More 
numerous in both are slight verbal alterations; and in the 
majority of cases in which such variations occur it is im- 
possible to say which is the original. When the outside Panea- 
tantra versions agree unanimously with one against the other, 
or with any single ms. of T against the rest, the original is 
thereby determined. When they too differ among themselves, 
or when they do not agree with either Tz or Tf, there is 
usually no way to decide which reading was found in the 
original 'T. 


CHAPTER VI 


EXAMPLES OF METHOD OF RECONSTRUCTION : 
ORIGINAL AND UNORIGINAL AGREEMENTS 


Purpose of this chapter.—In Chapter III I laid down the 
principle that agreements in sense or exact language between 
two or more independent versions constitute prima facie evi- 
dence as to the sense or language of the original. In Chapter 
IV I indicated the versions which can be shown to be inter- 
related. With these exceptions, I regard all the versions covered 
by my study as independent; that is, as related only thru the 
original Paficatantra, not thru any secondary archetype, in 
whole or in part. In Chapter V I undertook to show the 
fallacy of Hertel’s assumption of certain other secondary rela- 
tionships. In this sixth chapter I shall present some examples 
of the workings of my method of reconstruction. First I shall 
quote a continuous passage of some length (Book I, prose 
§§ 34—48 incl., with the verses that occur therein, I vss 7—23 
incl.), with the readings of all the versions. I have selected 
this passage as one of the best examples of an extensive por- 
tion of continuous text in which most of the versions agree 
closely with each other, not only in sense, but in exact lan- 
guage. Only the Brhatkatha versons (So and Ks) are very ill 
represented in it. The reason for this is that the passage con- 
tams no action at all; it is distinctly undramatic. And the 
Brhatkatha versions limit themselves primarily to the dramatic 
parts of the text, the stories proper; they practically exclude 
the rest. 

This passage is an illustration of the working-out of the 
reconstruction under the most favorable circumstances. Thruout 
the most of it, there can be little or no question of the general 
sense of the original. Possible doubts arise, generally speaking, 
only as to the precise language. My general rule, both as to 
agreements in sense and as to agreements in exact language, 


Reconstruction of Book I §§ 34—48 and vss 7—23 129 


is to assume that correspondences between versions that are 
not secondarily related establish a prima facie case for the 
original. Such prima facie evidence is not seriously contro- 
verted by variations in other versions, provided these other 
versions do not agree among themselves, and provided there 
is no other, special reason for doubting that the original read 
as indicated by the agreement first establisht. When indepen- 
dent agreements can be shown to exist among the other (dis- 
cordant) versions also; that is, when two irreconcilable agree- 
ments are found in the same passage, both apparently supported 
by independent versions; then we can only conjecture which 
was the original. One of the two agreements must certainly 
be accidental, since the original obviously cannot have contained 
both. Such cases occur, I believe, only with very minor and 
petty agreements, usually concerning slight variations in a 
single word, such as could without much difficulty have oc- 
curred independently. Examples are found in the following 
passage under § 34 (Pn and H), § 35 (T, SP$, Hp, Pn on the 
one hand, against SPs, Hm, and Spl), vs 9 (T, SP, and N 
against SPa, H, and Pn), vs 12 (Ta, SP, H against Tf, N, 
Spl, and v. 1. of SP), ete—Oceasionally there are other, special 
reasons for doubting the originality of an agreement between 
independent versions, even sometimes when there is no divergent 
agreement among other versions. Examples of such ‘‘ unoriginal 
agreements ” will be furnisht at the end of this chapter. 

Such explanatory comments as seem necessary to make my 
decisions entirely clear are added to each section or verse, 
rather fully at first, more briefly in the sequel. I trust that 
these comments, taken in connexion with the preceding chapters 
of this Introduction, will leave no one in the dark as to my 
methods and the basis of them. 


Reconstruction or Boox I §§ 34—48 anp vss 7—23 


Note.—For abbreviations of texts here referred to, and explanation of 
typographical devices used in the reconstruction, see the introductory 
pages of Volume I. Italics indicate parts of the reconstructed text which are 
not verbally certain; parentheses enclose parts which may not have been in 
the original, even in general sense.—In the prose sections of the following 
passage I print first the readings of all the Paficatantra versions used by 
me, so far as they contain the section in question; then my reconstruction ; 

Edgerton, Paficatantra, I. 9 


130 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


then my comments. In the verses, on the other hand, I print first a list of 
the versions in which the verse occurs; then my reconstruction, then the 
variants of all the versions, and the complete text of the Brhatkatha and 
Pahlavi versions; then my comments. 


1 § 34 


T All punas cabravit: dvayos tavad bhaksitaSesam aharanirvartanam* 
asty eva. 


SP 78 avayos tavad aharo bhaksitasesas tisthati. 
SPx avayos tavad bhaksitasesa ahara aste. 
Hp 52. 18 avayos tavad bhaksitasesaharah pracuras tisthati. 
Hm 10, bottom (as Hp except that it omits tavad and reads pracuro ’sti). 
Spl 8. 16 avayor bhaksitasesa aharo’sty eva. (Here addition.) 
Pn 6.1 punas cabravit: avayostavad bhaksitasesaharamatravartanam asty 
eva. 


Sy A 3.9 (before Story 1; transposed in position) Sind wir doch gut auf- 
gehoben an seiner Pforte und finden unseren Unterhalt {und ist unser 
Rang nicht danach, &c.; this does not correspond to the Sanskrit of 
this passage]. 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

Not in So or Ks, 

*T’ mss. Cnivartanam. 

Reconstruction: 


(punas cabravit:) Aavayos tavad bhaksitasesa aharo ’sty (eva). 


Comments: 


The words punas cabravit occur only in T and Pn. They seem natural, 
and their omission in the others does not prove unoriginality; but being 
found only in two interrelated versions they cannot be attributed with 
certainty to the original. They are therefore printed in parentheses and 
of course a fortiori in italics, for even if something of the same sense 
was present in‘the original, we have no proof that it contained these 
words. 

The word avayos in T, SP, H, Spl, Pn, and the sense in Sy and Ar. 
It is clearly an original word. 

The word tavad is supported by T, SP, H, and Pn. There being no 
reason to believe in secondary connexions between SP-H on the one hand 
and ‘I’ or Pn on the other, the word is doubtless original. 

After this we assume for the original bhaksitasesa aharo. So Spl, and, 
except for sandhi at the end, SPa, obviously the true reading of SP (the 
edition with SP merely transposes the two words, whose original order 
is proved by the agreement of all the others). There is no reason to 
believe in secondary relations between Spl and SP, and their agreement 
alone raises a strong presumption as to the original. But this presumption 
is only confirmed by the variations of the others. H merely combines the 
two words as a compound, and adds the adjective pracuras, which has 


Reconstruction of Book I §§ 34, 35 131 


no parallel elsewhere and may be assumed to be secondary. T (the mss. 
corruptly) expands aharo into a compound aharanirvartanam (?), and then 
makes bhaks® a neuter agreeing with it—also clearly secondarily. Pn 
follows, but emends, this reading of 'T, running together the two words 
as H does (a simple and doubtless secondary change). The Pahlavi 
versions have no equivalent for bhaksitasesa. 

That the verb of the sentence was asti is indicated by the agreement 
of T and the two Jain versions with Hm and (almost) with SP«, the 
original version of SP, whose aste is doubtless an easy change from asti. 

The word eva at the end is found only in T and the Jain versions 
and therefore cannot be considered certain; it makes good sense but is 
not absolutely required. Therefore it is printed in parentheses as a 
possible but not certain part of the original. 


: I § 35 
TA11.2 karatakatn damanaka aha: katham aharamatrarthi kevalaii 
bhavan. sarvyas tavat pradhanasevarn* kurute visesarthi. 
sadhu cedam ucyate. 


SP 78 damanakah: katham aharamatrarthi bhavan. rajanam avyalo- 
kaya. akarnaya. 
SP damanaka aha: katham ahararthi bhavan sevate. tatha ca. 


Hp 52.19 damanakah sarosam ahay: katham aharamatrarthi bhavan se- 
vate. etan na yuktam. yatah. 

Hm 11.1 damanakah sarosam aha: katham ahararthi bhavan kevalain 
rajanam sevate. etad ayuktam uktaih tvaya. yatah. 

So 33,34 ab etat karatakac chrutva dhiro damanako ‘bravit, antarbhtiya 
prabhoh prapyo visesah sarvada (Brockhaus sarvatha) bu- 
dhaih, ko hi nama na kurvita kevalodaraptranam.** 

Not in Ks. 

Spl 8. 17 damanaka aha: tat kitn bhavan ahararthi kevalam eva. tan 
na yuktam. uktath ea. 

Pn 6.2 damanaka aha: katham aharamatrarthi kevalatn bhavan pra- 
dhanasevain kurute, na visesarthitaya. sadhu cedam ucyate. 

Sy A 5 Dmng sprach: Bruder, [ich habe diese Geschichte gehért: aber| 

wer immer einem Herrn dient, tut dies doch nicht blo&S um seines 
Bauches willen.** 

Ar as Sy. 

*T mss. pradhanaseva, or pradhanaih, omitting sevaih. +So v.1.; text brite. 

**The last part of So, and probably of Sy also, represents a partial fusion 

of this and the following verse or verses. 
Reconstruction: 
damanaka aha: katham ahar(amatr)arthi (kevalam) bhavan. sarvas tdvat 
pradhanasevam kurute visesartht. sadhu cedam ucyate. 
Comments: 
The words damanaka aha with T, SP, H, Spl, Pn; except that T prefixes 
karatakam, and H inserts sarosam. Both may be presumed to be second- 


ary, being unsupported elsewhere. 
: ye 


132 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


katham is clearly original (T, SP, H, Pn; Spl kim). 

aharamatrarthi with T, SP8 (ed.), Hp, Pn; ahararthi SP«, Hm, Spl. 
It is interesting to observe that both readings are found in the internal 
tradition of both SP and H. In general SP« is apt to give the true 
reading of SP; but this is not always the case, and the agreement of 
SPé (ed.) and Hp may be that of the Ur-SP. Either reading could be 
changed into the other so sasily and naturally that there is no way of 
deciding the question with confidence. The evidence for -matra- is strong 
but not conclusive; it must go in parentheses. 

kevalarn seems at first sight pretty surely original, being found in 'T, 
Hm, Spl, Rn, and (in the epd. kevalodaraptiranam) in So. In spite of the 
fact that it is redundant if -matra- is original, I should accept it but for 
the facet that it occurs also in the following verses, from which it seems 
quite clear that So, at least, got the entire epd. of which it forms a part 
(for -udaraptiranam is certainly derived from the verses). And since it 
oceurs neither in SP (« or §) nor in Hp, it seems likely that it was second- 
arily inserted in the ms. or mss. of H to which Hm goes back. This leaves 
only T’ and Jn as authorities for kevalain here; and because they are 
interrelated and have many secondary features in common, we cannot be 
certain that kevalazn was original. It must therefore go in parentheses. 

bhavan is supported by T, SP, H, Spl, Pn (slightly transposed in Spl 
and [?] Hm), and hence is certainly original. 

sarvas tavat is found only in T in just this form. But note So sarvada 
(or tha), and Sy wer immer (= sarvas) einem Herrn dient, tut dies doch 
(= tavat?)... These readings, and especially Sy, seem to show that the 
subject of the verb which follows, in the original, was not the preceding 
bhavan (as in SPa, H, Pn—by omission of the word saryas), but rather 
that bhavan was the subject of an asti understood, to which ahar(amatr)- 
arthi was predicate. The agreement of T, So, and Pa in making the 
subject of the following verb general establishes sarvas (tavat) as at least 
the general sense of the original. Both words must, of course, be put in 
italics, as we have only T as authority for their exact language. tavat 
need hardly be"put in parentheses, since its sense is supported by Sy “doch”. 

_pradhanasevarh kurute is the reading of Pn, adopted by Hertel also 

in T as the probable reading to which his corrupt mss. go, back. This 
illustrates the fact referred to above, p. 38, that Pn often shows signs 
of having had before him a better text of T than any of our mss. The 
sense is supported by Sy (einem Herrn dient) and So (antarbhtiya 
prabhoh), and by SP« and H sevate (preceded in Hm by rajanarn, per- 
haps a good old reading, ef. SP8 [ed.] rajanam avalokaya, which other- 
wise is obviously a corruption). The evidence shows that some form or 
derivative of the root sev occurred in the original; for the rest we can 
be sure only of the general sense. Therefore we print these words in 
italies except for the letters sev, which are roman. 

visesarthi with T; Pn visesarthitaya of course does not prove this to 
be original. But So visesah shows not only that the general sense was 
such, but that the stem visesa- was present; for there is no evidence of 


Reconstruction of Book I § 35, vss 7,8 133 


dependence between So and T or Pn, and it is hardly likely that the 
verbal coincidence is a mere accident. The other versions omit it. 

The fact that H adds here etan na yuktam (Hm etad ayuktam uktarn 
tvaya), and Spl tan na yuktam, is probably not to be regarded as pointing 
to anything original. The value of H as evidence is diminisht by the 
failure of SP to show anything of the sort; and this is such a common 
stock-phrase that it is easy to suppose that it was inserted independently. 
It would be possible to insert it in the text in parentheses after vise- 
sarthi; but my experience with H and Spl makes me so, confident that 
they do not here reproduce the original, that I refrain from doing so. 

At. the end occurs in T, Pn sadhu cedam ucyate. That something of 
the same general sort occurred here is indicated by SPa tatha ca, H 
yatah, Spl uktath ca. There is no special reason for choosing one as the 
original rather than another, except the general principle that when other 
things are absolutely equal, the chances favor 'T (here supported by Pn). 
Hence I print 'T’s reading, of course in italics, since only the general 
sense and not the exact language is assured. 


Lixvs ¢ 


Occurs in the same position in T I. 6, SP I. 8, N II. 5, Hp II: 31, 
Hm IT. 35, Spl I. 22, Pn 1.9, Sy I. 3, Ar, and (fused with last part of 
preceding, I § 35, and possibly with next vs) in So 34 ab. 


Reconstruction: 


suhrdam upakarakaranad dvisatam apy apakarakaranat — 
nrpasamsraya isyate budhair jatharaiza ko na bibharti kevalam. 


Variants: 


b, TB, Spl, Pn capy for apy. 

‘So (ef. preceding passage) ko hi nama na kurvita kevalodaraptiranam 
(the last word seems to show influence of the next vs). 

Sy denn der Bauch kann sich tiberall sittigen; sondern darum dient 
er, um seinen Nichsten Gutes und seinen Feinden Uebles zuzufiigen. 

Ar as Sy. 

Comments: 

The entire text is certainly original with the possible exception of capy 
for apy in b. The agreement of T« with SP, N, and H makes it highly 
probable that apy is right; for Spl and Pn are secondarily related to T 
and their agreement with T is therefore no proof of originality. However, 
the change is so slight that it could easily be made independently, in 
either direction; so that we cannot be certain. I therefore print apy, but 
print the a- in italics as not being literally certain (it may have been ¢a-). 


Ivs 8 


Occurs in the same position in SP I. 9, N II. 6, Hp II. 32, Hm II. 37, 
Spl I. 23, Pn I. 10; cf. So 34b, quoted under preceding vs. 


134 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Reconstruction: 


yasmifi jivati jivanti bahavah sa tu jivati 
bako ‘pt kin na kurwte cafieva svodarapitiranam. 


Variants: 
b, Spl so’tra; SP ed., H jivatu (SPa, N, Jn text). ec, Hm kako ‘pi. Jn 
vayansi kin na kurvanti. d,SP °posanam, but SP text. 


Comments: 


Since the Jain versions are independent of SP-N, their agreement with 
SPa« and N in b establishes the original as jivati, in all probability. In 
c it is impossible to be sure of the language, whether bako ’pi... kurute 
or vayansi... kurvanti, since SP-N-H agree on one, and Jn on the 
other.—The literal identity of So’s -odarapiiranam with the end of this 
vs is not likely to be accidental, tho the preceding words in So point 
rather to vs 7. The two vss are doubtless fused in So. 

Before the next vs both T and SP read api ca, which is therefore to 
be attributed to the original. 


I vs 9 
Occurs in the same position in T I. 7, SP I. 10, N Il. 7, Hp II. 36, 
Hm II. 41, Pn 1.12, Sy 1.4, Ar; and So, 36, not quite in the same 
position, but separated from the preceding by a sloka and a half which 
corresponds to §§ 43 and 44 of my reconstruction. 


Reconstruction: 
svalpasnayuvasavasesamalinain nirmansam apy asthi goh 
Sva labdhva paritosam eti na ca tat tasya ksudhah santaye 
sinho jambukam ankam agatam api tyaktva nihanti dviparn 
sarvah krechragato ‘pi vafichati janah sattvanurtipam phalam. 
Variants: 

a, T svalpam. T, SP, N Cvasekamalinam (but SPa text), N, H, Pn 
asthikam for asthi goh. b, H bhavet for ca tat. SP, Hp, Pn ksudha, but 
SPa with N, Hm, and T °ah. 

So [maivam] atmanurtipaim hi phalath sarvo ’pi vafichati, 

Sva tusyaty asthimatrena kesari (Brockhaus kes?) dhavati dvipe. 

Sy Ein triiger Mann freut sich auch an etwas Veriichtlichem, wie der 
Hund, der einen trockenen Knochen gefunden hat und sich in seiner 
Gemeinheit tiber ihn freut, obgleich er keinen Genu8 von ihm hat. Aber 
der Strebsame und Weise gibt sich nur im Notfall mit ein wenig Gutem 
zufrieden, und strebt vielmehr nach Vermehrung, wie es ihm zukommt, 
gleich dem Léwen, der einen Hasen gefaBt hat, dann aber einen Wild- 
esel erblickt und den Hasen preisgibt in der Hoffnung auf den Wildesel. 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

Comments: 

In a the agreement of Ur-SP (establisht by unanimity of SP, N, H) 

with Pn proves that svalpa- is original, against T’s svalpam. But in the 


Reconstruction of Book I vss 9—11 135 


ease of the two other syllables of pada a and one syllable of pada b 
which I print in italics, the disagreement among the offshoots of Ur-SP 
leaves us in doubt as to the original. Both 'T and Pn are independent 
of Ur-SP; and when, as here, some of the Ur-SP texts agree with T, and 
others with a variant of Pn, we can only guess which was the original. 
The chances seem to favor asthi goh, since asthikarn looks like a lectio 
facilior.—Note that So here preserves several of the words of the original 
quite literally (-anurtipain, phalam, sarvo ’pi vafichati, Sva, asthi-). As to 
Sy, its correspondence is also fairly close, but note how it changes the 
Indian animals, jackal and elephant, into a hare and a wild-ass. 


I vs 10 . 
Occurs in the same place in TI. 8, SPI. 11, N II. 8, Hp I. 37, Hm 
II. 42, Pn I. 13, Sy I. 5, Ar. 
Reconstruction: 
langulacdalanam adhas caranavapatain 
bhtmau nipatya vadanodaradarsanain ca 
Sva pindadasya kurute gajapufgavas tu 
dhiram vilokayati catusatais ca bhunkte. 
Variants: 
a, SP °avaghatam (but SP text, which N also intends with its corrupt 
°avasana). b, Ta caranodara®. c, SPa madavaranas tu. d, Tf na for ca. 
Sy Der Hund dagegen wedelt lange seinen Schweif, [bis man ihm einen 
Knochen vorwirft (this is omitted in Sy but supplied by Schulthess from 
Ar),| wiihrend der iibermiitige (Schult. says the word means literally 
“trunkene” or “ briinstige’’] Elefant seine Stiirke und Kraft kennt und, 
wenn man ihm ehrerbietig Nahrung reicht, sich sehr rar macht, bis er fribt. 


Ar in sense as Sy. 
Comments: 


The text is certain thruout. But note that Sy seems to indicate agree- 
ment with SP« madavaranas in ¢ (perhaps this word was added as a 
gloss in the original, or, more likely, independently in the archetypes of 
SPa« and Pa). The Arabic texts contain no such epithet, however. 


Ivs 11 
Occurs only in T 1.9 and SP I. 12, but in the same place; and as T 
and SP are independent, doubtless original. 
Reconstruction: 
vidyavikramajain yo ’tti sadhu so ’tti *ha manavah 
Sva ’pi nama svalangilacalanad balim asnute. 
Variants: 
d, for balim of IT’, TS has phalam, and SP pindam (which latter may 
be the original reading). 


The similarity of this verse to the preceding makes it barely possible 
that it is a secondary insertion, made independently in T and SP; but 


156 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


there are so few such, comparatively, in the original text of SP («), that 
this is unlikely. 


I vs 12 
Occurs in the same place in TI. 10, SP I. 18, N IL. 9, Hp I. 38, Hm 
II. 43, Spl I. 24, Sy 1. 6, Ar. 
Reconstruction: 
yaj jivyate ksanam api prathitarh manusyair 
vijnanavikramayasobhir abhagnamanam 
tan nama jivitam iha pravadanti tayjnah 
kako ’pi jivati ciram ca balitn ca bhunkte. 
Variants: 

a, SP yo (a yaj) jivati...prathito (« °tarn) manusyo; N corrupt, intends 
text (yaksivyata...prathitarn manusyair); H text (except Hm jivati). b, 
Spl vijfianasauryavibhavaryagunaih sametam. SP alanghyamanah, but « 
text (v.1.°manah). ce, SP iti for iha, but « text. Ta loke for tajjfiah; TS 
and one ms. of SP santah. d, T8, N, Spl, and two mss. of SP ciraih ca; 
Ta (ed.), SP, H ciraya. N bhuktva. | 

Sy Wer ruhmvoll und mit vielen lebt, wird, wenn er auch nur kurze 
Zeit lebt, fiir langlebig geachtet, aber wer unter Plagen allein lebt, dessen 
Leben wird, auch wenn er lange lebt, nicht fiir ein Leben, sondern fiir 
ein Un-Leben geachtet. 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

Comments: 

As to a, it is evident that the Ur-SP read exactly as T and Spl, and 
this is therefore certainly the true text. In b also the text is subject to 
no doubts. Ine the only possible doubt attaches to the last word, which 
we should say was tajjfiah, with SP and Spl (which are independent of 
each other), without any question, but for the agreement of a single ms. 
of SP with Ts, santah. It is highly probable that tajjfiah is the original 
and santah a secondary variant. T« loke is surely secondary. 


Tvs 13 
Occurs in the same place in TI. 11, SP I. 14, N II. 10, Spl I. 25, Pn I. 14. 


Reconstruction: 
suptra vai kunadika suptro musakafijalih 
susamntustah kapurusah svalpakena ’pi tusyati. 
Variants: 

a, Spl syat for vai. b, Spl, and v.1. of SP, musika°; so N intends. ¢, 
SPs, N and Pn susaintosah; SP ed., T, Spl text. SP kupurusah (but « 
text). d, SP svalpah ke®°, but « text or °pain ke®. 

Comments: 

In b either mtisaka°® or mtisika® may have. been in the original. In e 
also it is impossible to decide between susatntosah and susarntustah, as 
the Ur-SP cannot be determined. The rest is certain. 


Reconstruction of Book I vss 12 —15, § 36 137 


Tvs 14 


Occurs in the same place in TJ. 12, SP I. 15, N IL 11, Hp II. 39, Hm 
11.45, Po I. 15, Sy I. 7, Ar. 

Reconstruction: 
ahitahitavicarasinyabuddheh srutisamayair bahubhir bahiskrtasya 
udarabharanamatrakevalecchoh purusapasos ea pasos ca ko visesah. 

Variants: 
b, T sruta®. To pariskrtasya, Hm tiraskr®. ce, Pn °matram eva lipsoh. 
Sy Zu den Rindern und Schafen ist der Mensch zu rechnen, der kein 
anderes Interesse hat als seinen Bauch. 
Ar in sense as Sy. 


Comments seem unnecessary; the entire text is certain. 
I vs 15 


Occurs in the same place in SP (ed.) I. 16, Pn I. 16. But not found in 
SPa« nor in N nor H, nor anywhere else. As the sense is very similar to 
that of the preceding verse, I regard it as highly likely that it was in- 
serted independently in SP6 and Pn; it is easy to see how different re- 
dactors, happening to be familiar with this vs, could insert it after the 
preceding vs which they found in their originals. Therefore I enclose it 
in parentheses as being of more than doubtful originality. 

Reconstruction: 

(gurusakatadhuraiidharas trnasi samavisamesu ca langalavakarsi 
jagadupakaranain pavitrayonir narapasuna sa visisyate gavendrah.) 
Variants: 

b, Pn °apakarsi, and so one ms. of SP; but °avakarsi is a better reading. 
c, SP °karane (cannot be right). d, Pn kim u miyate (most mss. katham 


upamiyate) for sa visi°. 
Comments: 


The variants of Pn in b and d may be right—assuming that the verse 
is original at all. 


I § 36 
TA 12 karataka aha: avain tavad apradhanau, kim Avayor anena 
vyaparena. 
SP 105 karataka aha: avam tavad apradhanau,tat* kim anena 
vyaparena. 


Hp 54. aah karatako brite: avai tavad apradhanau,tadapy** avayoh kim 


Hm13. 8 anaya vicairanaya. 

Spl 10.1  karataka aha: avain tavad apradhanau, tat kim ayayor anena 
vyaparena. 

Pn 6.32 karataka aha: avarm tavad apradhanau, kim anena 
vyaparena. ; 


Not in So or Ks. 
Sy A 6 Klile sprach: Priife die Sache, denn jeder muBG sich selbst er- 
kennen, und wem das seiner Stellung Entsprechende zuteil geworden 


138 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


ist, der soll sich dariiber freuen. Und unsere Stellung ist nicht so, dab 
wir uns nicht mit dem begniigen sollten, was wir haben. 
Ar in sense as Sy. 
#§P ed. begins with etac chrutva, which « omits; « also omits tat; a v. 1. 
of « adds asmakam at the end. **Hp tathapy. 
Reconstruction: 

karataka aha: avarh tavad apradhanau, (tat) kim avayor anena vya- 
parena. 

Comments: 

The text seems certain in almost every word. Note that avayor is 
supported by H, indicating that Ur-SP had it, tho it has dropt out in 
SP. The word tat is the only doubtful one, being not found in T, SP« 
or Pn, tho found in SP§ (ed.) and Spl, whereas H has tadapy or ta- 
thapy. The chances seem to me about even that tat, or at least an equi- 
valent, was in the original. 


I § 37 
T A 12 damanaka aha: ~ kiyata kalena pradhano vapradhano 
bhavati. 
TE so *bravit : bhadra, kiyata kalena pradhano va 
bhavati. 
SP 105 damanakah  : kiyata kalenapradhano ’pi pradhanatam 
apnoti. uktain ca. 
SP so *bravit : kiyata kalenapradhanah pradhano 
bhavati. uktarh ca. 
Hp 54.16 | _,,,  Kiyata kalenamatyah* pradhanatam 
Hm 135.9. J damanako brite*: apradhanatain va labhate*. yatah. 
Spl 10.8  damanaka aha: ma maivaih vada. 


Pn 6, 32 so ‘bravit: bhadra, kiyatapi kalena pradhano ’pradhano ’pi 

bhavati. uktarh ca. 

Not in So or Ks. 

Sy A 6, end: Dmng sprach: (“vs 8”) Der Strebsame und der Nicht- 
strebsame bleiben nicht auf éiner Rangstufe. [A misunderstanding of 
the Sanskrit, but clearly pointing to pradhana and apradhana.] 

Ar? Perhaps represented by OSp p. 50, middle: Las dignidades e las 
medidas de los homnes son comunas e son contrarias.—I find nothing 
like this in most of the Arabic texts; but OSp frequently preserves 
the original Pahlavi better than any other Ar texts. 

*Hp dam®° punar aha, v. 1. simply damanakah. Hm °amatyah...labhante. 


Reconstruction: 
so ‘bravit: (bhadra,) kiyata kalena ’pradhano (’pz) pradhaino bhavati. 


(uktam ca.) 
Comments: 


so ‘bravit, with T6, SPs, and Pn, seems a good guess at the original 
but can hardly be regarded as certain; hence the italics. 


Reconstruction of Book I § 37 and vss 16, 17 139 


bhadra, doubtful, since found only in Tf and the dependent Pn. 

kiyata kalena is establisht by T, SP, H, and Pn (Pn varies by in- 
serting api). 

The agreement of SP (edition in sense, and a, the more original, in 
almost exact language) with Pn (which is only transposed in order) seems 
to make apradhano (’pi) pradhano substantially certain, only the particle 
api heing not entirely certain (since omitted in SP2), tho I think it is 
highly probable; I put it in parentheses. H and T have, seemingly indepen- 
dently, altered the idea by making it two-sided instead of one-sided; but 
the only side which is appropriate to the present situation is that one 
out of office may get into office, not the reverse. The fact that SP agrees 
so closely with Pn indicates that it furnishes us with the reading of 
Ur-SP; from which it follows that H is secondary. 

bhavati is establisht by T, Pn, and SPe. 

uktath ca is found in SP and Pn; H has yatah. In spite of the agree- 
ment of two independent versions, it can hardly be considered certain, 
since all versions frequently add such a phrase before any sententious 
stanza. 


I vs 16 


Occurs in the same place in T J. 13, SP I.17, N I. 12, Hp II. 40, 
Hm II. 46, Pn 1.18, Sy I. 8 (second part), Ar. 


Reconstruction: 


na kasya cit kas cid iha prabhavad bhavaty udaro ’bhimatah khalo va 
loke gurutvain viparitatain ca svacestitany eva narai nayanti. 
Variants: 

a, H svabhavad. c, N, H, Pn va for ca. 

Sy Denn der Strebsame gelangt von einer niedrigen Stufe zur Hohe, 
und der Nichtstrebsame kommt durch seine Indolenz yon der Hohe zu 
Geringem herunter. 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

Comments: 

The only possible doubt attaches to ca in pada ec. We cannot be sure 
what Ur-SP read, since one of its branches reads ca and the other va; 
T agrees with the former, Pn with the latter. The chances are about 
even, but perhaps siightly in favor of T’ and SP. Hence I print ca, in 
italics. 

I vs 17 

Occurs in the same place in T I. 15 (after insertion of I. 14, found 
nowhere else and presumably unoriginal), SP I. 18, N Ul. 13, Hp II. 41, 
Moiese n f.19, Sy J. 9, Ar. 

Reconstruction: 
aropyate sma sailagratn yatha yatnena bhityasa 
nipatyate sukhena ’dhas tatha ’tma gunadosayoh. 


140 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Variants: 

a, H sila saile, but Hp v. 1. sma sailagre: SP« and N also °agre. b, T, 
Hm yatnena mahata yatha. c, T, Hm ksanenadhas. SPa sukhenaiva. Pn 
patyate sukham evadhas. 

Sy Und schwer ist es fiir einen, sich aus der Geringheit zur Hohe zu 
erheben, wiihrend es dem Triigen leicht ist, zur Geringheit zu kommen, 
gleichwie es schwer ist, einen Stein in die Héhe zu heben, aber leicht, 
ihn zu Boden zu werfen. , 

Ar texts mostly agree in sense with Sy (JCap and Eleazar are not 
clear, and may possibly indicate a reading more like the Sanskrit). 


Comments: 

In a the only question is sailagrarn or °gre, and the former is proved to 
be right by the agreement of T, Pn with SP§, showing that SPa« and N 
have here probably departed (independently?) from the Ur-SP. In b and 
ec the most interesting and instructive thing is the agreement of Hm 
with T. It is as certain as anything of this kind can be that the agree- 
ment is purely accidental; that is, that the scribe who is ultimately 
responsible for Hm’s readings did not know the T, but simply knew the 
stanza in this form as a floating proverb. As for his having inherited 
this reading from the original, the very idea is absurd; for the agreement 
of SP, N, and Hp is absolutely conclusive as to what the Ur-SP read, 
and Pn’s agreement herewith further establishes the original Pafie. Ac- 
cordingly we have a clear case of a floating proverbial stanza which is 
responsible for the same change being made in two entirely unrelated 
Paficatantra texts.—The word nipatyate is establisht by T and the Ur- 
SP, the word adhas by all texts but SPa, and that sukhena rather than 
ksanena was original is shown by Pn (sukham) in comparison with SP, 
N, and Hp. 


I § 38 
T A 13 tad bhadrayatto (em. Hertel as SP) hy atma sarvasya. 
SP 111 tasmad (« tat) bhadratmayatto hy atma sarvasya. 
Hp 55. 3 
a 1d. ri \ tad bhadra svayatnayatto (Hp prayat®) hy atma sarvasya. 


Not in Jn, So, Ks. 
Sy A 7 Darum sollen auch wir bestrebt sein, unsere Stellung zu férdern. 
Ar in sense as Sy. 

Reconstruction: 


tad bhadra ’tma@yatto hy atma sarvasya. 


Comments: 


The perfect agreement of T, SP«, and H, and the fairly close cor- 
respondence of Pa in sense, establishes every word except atmayatto, or 
rather the first syllable of that word. The reading of SP is adopted by 
Hertel in T’, which is obviously corrupt; and the chances are that this 
is the original. But the first syllable must be printed in italics, since SP 
is the only authority we have for it; even H varies. 


teconstruction of Book I §§ 38—40 141 


I § 39 
PeAMIS karatakah (6 °ka aha): atha ’tra bhavan kit kartumanah. 
SP 111 karatakah (« °ka aha): atha bhavan kith vaksyati 
(a braviti). 
ah a ; karatako one : atha bhavan kith braviti. 
Spl 11.8 karataka aha: atha bhavan kith kartumanah. 
Priwes karataka aha: atha bhavan kitn vaktumanah. 


Not in So or Ks. 
Sy A 7.3 Klilg sagte: So sprich jetzt, was begehrst du? 
Ar in sense as Sy (JCap 42.11 Quibus nunc firmasti animum?), 


Reconstruction: 


karataka aha:atha (?’tra) bhavan kith kartumandah. 


Comments: 

The word atra is found only in T and its originality is more than 
doubtful; yet it may have been omitted in the others, and therefore it 
is safer to indicate the slight possibility that it is original by inserting 
it in parentheses with a question-mark.— Otherwise the original is quite 
certain (aha is guaranteed by the agreement of SP« with Tf and Jn), 
except for the last word. T and Spl seem to establish the reading of 
Ur-T as kartumanah; SP and H establish the reading of Ur-SP as 
braviti. Pn looks like a sort of compromise between the two, but may 
well be based solely on the reading of T-Spl, varied independently by 
Pn himself. Pa supports kartumanah better than braviti, and I therefore 
prefer the former; but it must be printed in italics, since we have only 
the single stream of tradition, the Ur-T and its offshoots, to guarantee it 
literally. 


I § 40 
T A 13 damanakah: ayath tavat svami bhirus ca bhiruparivaras ca 
mudhamatih. 
Tg so ‘bravit: [&e.] bhiruparivaras 
SP 111 so ’bravit: ayam avayoh svami piigalako bhito bhitaparivaras 
ea mudhamatih. 
SPaw damanaka aha: [&c.| 


Hp 55. 4 sa aha: aya tavat svami piigalakah kuto ’pi bhayat* saca- 

Hm 14. 5 kitah parivrtyopavistah. 

Spl 11.8 so ’bravit: adyasmatsvami pingalako bhito bhitaparivaras 
ca vartate. 

Ph 7.9 so ’bravit: ayarh tavad asmatsvami bhito bhitaparivaras ca 
mudhamanah sarhtisthate. 

Not in So or Ks. 

Sy A 7.4 Dmng sprach: Ich gehe direkt zum Fiirsten, denn er ist ein 

Kindskopf und sein Gefolge ist furchtsam. 
Ar in sense as Sy. 
*Hm karanat. 


142 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Reconstruction: 
so ’bravit: ayai tivat svami (pingalako) bhito bhitaparivaras ca miidha- 


matih. 
Comments: 


so ’bravit is pretty firmly establisht by Tf, SP ed., and Jn. 

ayain is in all Sanskrit texts but Spl. 

tavat is establisht beyond reasonable doubt by the agreement of H 
with T Pn; it is fairly clear that Ur-SP read tavat as H, and that SP’s 
aivayoh is a secondary change (probably due to a phonetic mistake; the 
sounds -ava- are common to the two words). 

svami is found in all texts (cf. Sy Fiirsten). Jn prefixes asmat-, doubt- 
less secondarily; probably no connexion between this and SP avayoh, 
which, as has just been indicated, probably replaces tavat of Ur-SP. 

piigalako was found in Ur-SP and in Spl, and may have been original; 
but it would be very easy to add it secondarily after svami, and the 
lack of it in T, Pn makes me dubious. Hence parentheses. 

bhito bhitaparivaras ca is guaranteed by SP and Jn; T varies slightly, 
If more radically. ; 

mudhamatih is guaranteed by TT and SP (ef. Pn mtidhamanah, Sy 
Kindskopf). 

There was no verb at the end. The additions of Jn and H are evi- 
dently secondary. 


I § 41: Part 1 
TA 13 karatakah (6 so ’bravit): katharh bhavafi janati. 
a 


SP 112 so ’bravit : kathatrh bhava janati. 

Hp 55.5 ; 4 atl 

Hm 14. 7 J karatako brtite : kim tatra (Hm tat) tvath janisi. 

Spl11.11 karataka aha :kathath vetti bhavan yad bhaya- 
visto ‘yain svami. 

Pn 7. 10 so ‘brayit : kathain bhavafi janati. 


Not in So or Ks. 
Sy A 7.8 Klilg sprach: Woher weiBt du, da8 der Liwe bestiirat ist? 
Ar in sense as Sy. 


Part 2 
T damanakah (6 °ka aha) : kim atra jfieyam. uktath ca. 
SP damanakah (« °ka dha) : kim atraviditam* asti. uktaih ca. 
H damanako vadati (Hm brite): kim atraviditam asti. uktaih ca. 
Spl SO *bravit : kim atra jileyam. yata uktath ca. 
Pn damanaka aha :kim atra jiiatavyam. 


Not in So or Ks. 

Sy Dmng sprach: Aus Anzeichen erkenne ich es. 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

*SPa atraipy avi®. . 

Reconstruction: 

so ’bravit: kathath bhavaf janati. damanaka aha: kim atra jieyam. 
uktaih ea. 


Reconstruction of Book I § 41, vs 18, § 42 143 


Comments: 

so ’bravit with SP, Tf, and Pn, quite clearly establishing the original. 

kathatn bhavafi janati with T, SP, Pn; slight and evidently independ- 
ent variations in H, Spl. 

The additions of Spl (yad bhayavisto svami) and Sy (da® der Liwe 
bestiirzt ist) happen to coincide closely; but they are just the sort of 
addition that would be made in a free paraphrase such as Pahlavi, and 
in an expansive text such as Spl; and the negative agreement of all the 
other texts demonstrates, in my opinion, that these words were not in 
the original. 

damanaka aha with Tf, SPo, Pn. 

kim atra with all Sanskrit texts. 

jileyam with T, Spl (synonym jiatavyam in Pn), establishing Ur-T. 
But Ur-SP aviditam (asti). The two expressions are practically synony- 
mous, and there is no way of telling which was original, as we have 
only two independent streams of tradition that offer evidence, and each 
gives evidence that is internally unanimous but mutually discordant. 
One or the other must be printed in italics. In such a case, other things 
being dbsolutely equal (as they seem to be here), I give preference to 
T.—If jfieyam is right, there was probably no asti after it. 

uktaia ca is guaranteed by T’, SP, H, Spl. 

I vs 18 
Occurs in the same place in T I. 16, SP 1.19, N IJ. 14, Hp II. 48, 
Hm II. 49, Spl I. 43, Pn I. 20, Sy I. 10, Ar. 
Reconstruction: 
udirito ‘rthah pasuna ’pi grhyate hayas ca nagas ca vahanti coditah 
anuktam apy thati pandito janah parengitajianaphala hi buddhayah. 
Variants: 
a, N budhyate. b, Pn noditah, H desitah (Hp v. 1. taditah). 
Sy Denn ein Weiser erkennt aus jemandes Gesicht, Gewohnheiten und 


Blick seine Gesinnung und was er tun will. 
Ar (Wolff p. 12) in sense as Sy. 


Comments seem unnecessary; the entire verse is certain. 


I § 42 
T A 14 tad enam adyai ‘va prajfiaprabhavena ’tmikarisyami.* 
SP 116 tad enam adyai ’va prajfiaprabhavena ’tmiyam karisyami. 
Hp 55. 18 tad atra bhayaprastave *ham etain prajiabalenatmiyaia 


karisyami. 

Hm 14, bottom: atra bhayaprastave prajfiabalenaham enain svaminam 
itmiyai karisyami. 

Spl 11. 20 tad adyainamh bhayakulam prapya svabuddhiprabhavena 
nirbhayarn krtva vasikrtya ca nijain sacivyapadavii 
samasadayisyimi. 

Prvers tad enam adyiivatmaprajfaprabhiivena vasikarisyami. 


144 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Not in So or Ks. 

Sy A 7.5 (before § 41) vielleicht kann ich in dieser Bestiirzung bewirken, 
daB mich der Léwe zu sich heranzieht und zum Vertrauten macht. 

Ar in sense and position as Sy. 

*|’ mss. have minor variants. 


Reconstruction: | 
tad enath (bhayadkulam prapyd) ’dyai ’va prajiiaprabhavena ’tmi(yaih) kari- 
syami. 
Comments: 

The phrase bhayakularh prapya (Spl) seems supported by H bhaya- 
prastave and by Pa (Sy in dieser Bestiirzung). It is at least possible that 
it is original, as otherwise we must suppose that it was added indepen- 
dently by these three versions or their archetypes; none of the three are 
interrelated. I should be more confident of the originality of the phrase, 
were it not for the fact that both T and SP lack it, and even a negative 
agreement between them is worth heeding when they otherwise cor- 
respond so closely as they do in this section; for this means that they have 
here preserved the original with remarkable fidelity. Because of the 
doubts raised by this fact, I put the phrase in parentheses, tho I think 
it likely that something of the sort was in the original. 

The rest of the section is verbally establisht by T and SP together, 
with the others following in sense and partly in language. The only question 
is whether the original had atmikarisyami with T, or atmiyain kar® with 
Ur-SP (SP, H). The other texts have different synonyms and do not 
decide the matter. I print atmi(yar), indicating that the original reading 
may have been either one. 


I § 43 
T A 14 karatakah : bhadra, anabhijfio bhavan sevadharmasya; 
katham atmikarisyasi. 
TB so ‘bravit:{lacuna after bhadra}. 
SP 116 karatakah :bhadra, tvarn sevanabhijiiah. 
SP« karatako "bravit : anabhijfio bhavan sevadharmasya. 


Hp 55.17) re : sly : ee ee 
Hm (15234 karatako ‘bravit (Hm brite): sakhe, tvarn sevanabhijfiah. 


Spl 11. 21 karataka aha: anabhijfio bhavan sevadharmasya, 
tat katham enaihn vasikarisyasi. 
Pa W118 karataka aha: anabhijfio bhavan kila sevadharmasya, 


tat kathaya katham atmikarisyasi. 
So 34 ed, 35 ab evarn damanakenokte sadhuh karatako ’brayit, sveechaya- 
tipraveso yo na dharmah sevakasya sah. (Cf. § 45.) 

Not in Ks. 

Sy A 8 Klilg sprach: Da du noch nicht mit Herrschern verkehrt hast und 
im Dienste nicht erfahren bist, wie ist es da méglich, daB der Liwe 
dich zu sich heranzieht und zum Vertrauten macht? 

Ar in sense as Sy. 


Reconstruction of Book I §§ 43, 44 145 


Reconstruction: 

karatako “bravit: bhadra, anabhijfio bhavan sevyadharmasya; (tat) katham 
dtmikarisyast. 
Comments: 

karatako with all texts except T?. 

"‘bravit, TB, SP«, Hp, So; aha, Jn; no verb, Ts, SP (ed.). The word 
would seem well establisht; but since it is merely a verb of saying and 
so particularly subject to secondary substitutions, I do not consider it 
absolutely certain. Hence italics. 

bhadra with T and SP (ed.); H sakhe; omitted in SPa, Jn. The agree- 
ment of T with part of the SP tradition, and in sense H, is sufficient to 
establish the original with reasonable confidence; the others differ only 
negatively, by omitting the word. 

anabhijfio bhavan sevadharmasya, with 'T, SPs, Jn (Pn inserting kila): 
SP ed. and H have a paraphrase; So (containing the stem dharma) points 
to our text as original. The sense also in Pa. 

The rest of the passage is found, among Sanskrit versions, only in T’ 
and Jn, which are secondarily interrelated; hence its language cannot be 
assumed to belong to the original, and it must be printed in italics. But 
the sense is clearly supported by Pa (Sy wie ist es da méglich ete.), 
showing that something of this general sense was in the original.—The 
word tat (Jn) is not found in T and need not have been in the original; 
hence parentheses around it. | 


I § 44: Part 1 


T A 14 damanakah : katham aha sevanabhijfiah. 
SP 116 damanakah («°ka aha): bhadra, katham ahaih sevanabhijfiah. 
St damanako yedati : bhadra, katham ahah sevanabhijfiah 
Hm 15. 6 f - wo brite ae ; eee 
pasya. 
Spl 11. 22 damanaka aha : linsertion| 
Pryinig so ‘bravit :bhadra, katham ahath na_ sevabhijfiah. 


[insertion as Spl| 
So 35 cd iti coktah karatakenedam damanako ’bhyadhat. 
Not in Ks. Sy, Ar only (Sy A 8.4) Dmng sprach. 


Part:2 

T  nanu mayai ’sa sakalo ’nujividharmo vijfiatah. api ca. 
SP nanu maya sakalanujividharmo jhatah. uktatn ca. 
SPa nanu maya sakalo ‘nujividharmo vijfiatah. tatha hi.* 
H, So, Ks nothing. 
Spl sakalo ’py anujividharmo  vijfiata iti. 
Pn sakalo ’py anujividharmo vijiiatah. iti. uktath ca. 
Sy, Ar nothing. 
*Some mss. omit tatha hi. 

Reconstruction: 


damanaka dha: bhadra, katham ahaihn sevanabhijiiah. nanu mayai (sa) 


sakalo ’nujividharmo vijfiatah. wktam ca. 
Edgerton, Pancatantra. II. 10 


146 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Comments: 

damanaka aha with SP« and Spl; the verb cannot be regarded as 
certain, but the name is found in all versions but Pn. 

bhadra, with Ur-SP (SP and H) and Pn. 

katham ahah sevanabhijfiiah with T and Ur-SP; Pn also very close. 

nanu maya with T and SP. 

esa only in T: hence parentheses and italics. 

sakalo ’nujividharmo vijfiatah with T, SPs, and Jn (Jn insert api and 
add iti); SP ed. varies slightly. 

uktath ca with SP ed. and Pn; T api ca; SP« reads tatha hi or omits. 
The word uktazn is hardly certain, but ca seems safe. 


I vs 19 
Occurs in the same place in TI. 17, SP I. 20, N II. 15, Pn I. 22, Sy I. 11, Ar. 


Reconstruction: 
ko ’tibharah samarthanatn kith dtrain vyavasayinam 
ko videsah swvidyanam kah parah priyavadinam. 


Variants: 

ce, T ed. with «, N, and v.1. of SP, savid®; Tf, Pn, and SP ed. text. 
We cannot be certain as to which is original, since either makes good 
sense and the streams of tradition vary internally. 

Sy Fiir den erfahrenen Mann gibt’s kein Unternehmen, das ihm ver- 
schlossen wiire. Denn fiir das Tier gibt’s Umherirren und fiir den Léwen 
fremdes Gebiet, fiir den Weisen und Unterwiirfigen aber gibt’s keinen 
Fremden. |The word Unterwiirfigen represents an emendation by Schult- 
hess: the ms. has a word meaning “ Verniinftigen,” and this should cer- 
tainly be kept, cf. KF 7.6 “a wise and knowing man.” 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

I § 45 

T A 15 karatakah (6 °ka aha): kadacid asaév anucitapravesad bhavan- 

tam avamanyate. 

SP 120 karatakah (« °ka aha): kadacit tvam anavasarapravesad avaman- 

yate svami. 

Hp 56.10 \ karatako brite : kadacit tvam anavasarapravesad avaman- 

Hm 15, foot J yate svami. 

Pn 7.24 karataka aha :kadacid ayam anucitasthdnapravesad 

bhavantam avamanyeta, 

Not in Spl or Ks. 

So (cf. 85a, under § 48; also) 37 etae chrutva karatako ’vadid evain krte 
yadi, kupyati praty uta svami tad visesaphalarh kutah. 

Sy p. 6, 1. 7 Klilg sprach: [next vs; then, A 9] Dich zieht der Liwe nicht 
zu sich heran, und es diirfte dir nicht leicht sein, jederzeit mit ihm 
ins Gespriich zu kommen. Wie kannst du es erreichen, da er dich zu 
sich heranzieht und zum Vertrauten macht? [Last part is a repetition 
of the end of § 43.| 

Ar in sense as Sy. 


Reconstruction of Book I vs 19, §§ 45,46 and vs 20 147 


Reconstruction: 
karataka aha: kadacit tvdm anavasarapravesad avamanyate svami. 


Comments: 

karataka with all texts; aha with T8, SP«, Pn, which seems sufficient 
proof of its originality. 

For the rest, the words left roman are literally found in T, SP, and 
Pn (except that Pn has avamanyeta); the sense also in So, Pa. The words 
printed in italics I read with Ur-SP (SP and H), whereas T, Pn have 
synonyms, and vary the order. Possibly the occurrence of the word svyami 
in So may be taken as some support for that word, instead of T asav 
or Ph ayam. Otherwise there is little reason to choose one version rather 
than the other. 


I § 46 
TA15 damanakah (8 so ’bravit):asty etat. tathapi. 
SP 120 so ’bravit : astv (v.1. asty) evam. tathapy avasyam 


(« om) anujivinaih («°na) sarnnidhyar karaniyam. uktarh ca (« om u° ca). 
Hp 56.11 | so ‘bravit (Hm sa caha): astv evam. tathapy anujivina sarhni- 
Hm 16. 1 { dhyam (Hm svamisarn®) avasyain karaniyam. yatah. 
Pn 7, 24 so ’bravit : asty evam. 

Not in Spl, So or Ks. 
Sy A 9, end: Dmng sprach. 
Ar, JCap 43.6 Verum est, ait Dimna, quod dicis; sed—. 


Reconstruction: 


so ’bravit: asty evam. tatha ‘py (anwivind samnidhyam avasyam kara- 


niyam. uktan ca.) 
; Comments: 


so ’bravit with TS, SP, H, Pn. 

asty with T, Pn, and y. 1. of SP, seems more probable than astv of H 
and SP ed., and indeed seems pretty sure. 

evam, with SP, H, and Pn, is clearly original rather than etat of T. 

tathapi with 'T, SP, H. 

The parenthetized phrase only in Ur-SP, and therefore cannot be re- 
garded as a sure part of the original; but since Ur-SP seldom expands, 
it is at least very possibly original. The reading of H, which I adopt, 
is partly supported by SP«, partly by SP6 (ed.). 


I vs 20 


Occurs in the same place in TI. 18, SPI. 21, N I. 16, Hp II. 51, Hm 
II. 58, Pn I. 28; and nearly in the same place in Spl 1. 35 (following our 
§ 87) and Pa (Sy I. 12, inserted in our § 45; Ar as Sy). Cf. also Ks 280 


25) ed. : 
a0) Reconstruction: 


asannam eva nrpatir bhajate manusyain 
vidyavihinam akulinam asazhstutamh va 
prayena bhimipatayah pramada latas ca 
yah parsvato vasati tain parivestayanti. 
10* 


148 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Variants: 


b, T prajfiavihinam; N vidyavinodam. Spl asainskrtarn, SP apanditarn, 
H asamgatam. d, N, Jn bhavati for vasati of T, SP, H. Jn yat... tat. 

Ks asanna eva prayena (SP. and Ma. v. 1. prahvena) nrpah kantas ca 
sadarah. 

Sy Ein Herrscher ehrt nicht den, der strebsam ist, sondern den, der 
ihm besonders nahe steht. Haben doch die Weisen gesagt: Die Frau wird 
nicht von jedem Herrscher und der Weinstock nicht yon jedem Baum 
verherrlicht, sondern nur sofern sie mit ihnen in Beriihrung kommen. 

Ar must have represented the original Pahlavi, and the Sanskrit, 
better than Sy; ef. OSp p. 51 towards bottom: Ca dicen los sabios que 
el que es de la compafiia del rey e de la muger, que non lo allegan a si 
por mayor bondat, mas por que est&é mas cercano que otro; bien asi como 
la vid que se non traba al mayor arbol, mas al que mas acerca le esta. 


Comments: 


In b vidya- is found in all texts but T and is therefore certainly 
original. asarhstutazn is proved original by the agreement of N with T 
and Jn (evidently SP and H have varied independently from the Ur-SP 
reading). It is instructive to observe the “Verballhornung” of the meaning 
in Sy; this is however not mainly the fault of the Pahlavi, but rather of 
the Syriac translator himself, since OSp shows that the Ar was fairly close 
to the Sanskrit. In d bhavati is clearly a lect. fac., independently made 
in N and Jn. 


I vs 21 


Occurs in the same place in T 1.19, SP I. 22, N IJ.17, Pn I. 29, Sy 
I. 13, Ar, and nearly in the same place in Spl I. 386 (immediately after 
preceding vs). 
Reconstruction: 


kopaprasadavasttini vicinvantah samipagah 
arohanti sanair bhrtya dhunvantam api parthivam. 


Variants: : 


a, N °pramada®. b, Spl ye vicinvanti sevakah. SP, N pade-pade for 
T, Pn samipagah. ec, Spl sanaih pascad. d, T dhtirtain tam for dhunvan- 
tam (see my Crit. App.) SP parthivadrumam, but SP« api pa° as text. 

Sy Die den Herrschern nahestehen, stehen ihnen nicht von Anfang 
an nahe. Es hat eine Zeit gegeben, wo sie sich mit eifrigem Streben 
heranmachten. [After this follows in Sy A 10 and vs 14, found nowhere 
else except in certain inferior mss. of SP, and doubtless not original.| 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

Comments: 


There is no way of telling whether the reading of ‘Il’ Pn or that of 
Ur-SP is original in b. The rest I believe is certain. Cf. p. 109 f. 


Reconstruction of Book I vs 21, § 47, vs 22 149 


. I § 47 

TA 16 karatakah :atha bhavan kit tatra vaksyati. 
damanakah: bhadra. 

Té karataka aha :atha bhavan kith tatra vaksyati. 
so *bravit: bhadra. 

SP 128 karatakah :atha bhavanis tatra kith vaksyati. 
so ‘bravit. 

SPa karataka aha :atha bhavan kin vaksyati. 
damanaka aha. 

Hp 56.20 karatako vadati :atha tatra gatva kin vaksyasi. 
sa aha. 

Hm 16. 9 karatako brite :atha tatra gatva kin vaksyati 
bhavan. sa aha. 

Spl 13.10 karataka aha :atha bhavans tatra gatva kith tavad 
vaksyati.** 

Pn 9.11 karataka aha :atha bhavans tatra gatva*kith vaksyati.** 


Not in So or Ks. 

Sy A lla Klilg sprach: Nimm an, es sei dir gelungen, in die Niihe des 
Léwen zu kommen. Wenn du dahin gelangt bist, wie kannst du dann 
den Léwen iiberreden, da8 er dich zu sich heranzieht und zum Ver- 
trauten macht? 

(A 11b) Dmng sprach. 

Ar in sense as Sy. 

*Here Pn adds prathamam eva. **Jn end: tat tavad ucyatam. so ’bravit 
(Spl damanaka aha). 

Reconstruction: 


karataka aha: atha bhavans tatra gatva kim vaksyati. damanaka dha. 


Comments: 


karataka is certain, and aha seems fairly certain from Tf, SP«, and Jn. 

atha bhavans tatra seems certain from T, SP, H, Jn, altho bhavan is 
omitted in Hp and transposed in Hm, and tatra is transposed in ‘TT’ and 
omitted in SP. 

gatva seems to me sufficiently assured by the agreement of H (well 
attested) and Jn. Its omission in ‘Tl, SP is a much easier assumption 
than its addition independently in H and Jn. 

kith vaksyati is abundantly supported. The insertions in Jn before and 
after these words are obviously secondary. 

At the end was either damanaka aha or so ’bravit; it is impossible to 
be sure which. T’s bhadra is unsupported and doubtless secondary. 


I vs 22 
Occurs in the same place in T I. 20, SP I. 23, Spl I. 60, Pn I. 46. 


Reconstruction: 


uttarad uttaratn vakyam uttarad eva jayate 
suvrstigunasampannad bijad bijam iva ‘param. 


150 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


Variants: 
b, Spl vadatain sathprajayate. c, SP °saitnparkad, but SPa text. 
The text is certain thruout. 


After this vs T, Pn add api ea, which may be original but of course 
is not certain. 


Smulivysuss 


Occurs in the same place in TI. 21, SP I. 27, N IJ. 18, Hp I. 55, Hm 
IL, 62, Spl). 61, Pn J. 47, Sy A 11 b.i8, and yeok 1b Ar 


Reconstruction: 
apiyasahdarganajain vipattim upayasamdarsganajain ca siddhim 
medhivino nitividhiprayuktain purah sphurantim iva darsayanti. 
Variants: 

ce, T nitividah pra°; °vidhi® with N, H; SP °pada® (« °patha®, v. 1. °vidi®), 
Jn °guna®. SP °prayuktah. 

Sy so, daB es ihm Nutzen bringt und mir keinen Schaden, und (vs 15) 
so zeige ich ihm klar, da8 ein Unternehmen, welches verrichtet werden 
mu, gut ist, und so hilt er auch mich fiir gut. 

Ar closer to the original, see Schulthess note 33. 


Comments: 


In ec, the reading of Ur-SP seems clearly to have been °vidhi°, which 
is preserved not only in N and H but in slightly corrupt form °vidi° in 
a good old ms. of SPa It seems much more likely to be correct than 
‘I’s °vidah, which leaves prayuktarh rather in the air, besides being an 
unnecessary duplication of medhavino. Jn have the obviously secondary 
°guna° and give us no help. All we can do is to print °vidhi° in italics 
(except the syllable vi, supported by T) as being uncertain, but the most 
likely guess as to the original. 


I § 48 
fe na caham apraptakalarn vaksyami. 
SPa 142 na caiham apraptakalarm vaksyami. (SP ed. varies 


slightly.) 

Hp 57.15 | naham apraptivasarath vacanath vaksyami (Hm vadisyami). 

Hm 17.10 J yatah. 

Spl 18.18 na caham apraptakalai vaksye. 

Pn 7. 25* param ahaib degakalavid api. uktarh ea. 

Not in So, Ks, Sy, Ar. 

*This passage in Pn occurs not in the same place but somewhat earlier, 
before our I vs 20. That it corresponds to our passage is proved by 
the fact that it is immediately followed by the following verse, our I ys. 24. 


Reconstruction: 
na ca *ham apraptakalaih vaksyami. 


Comments seem unnecessary; the entire text is certain. 


. . . . js 
Original and unoriginal agreements 151 


Original and unoriginal agreements.—I trust that the preceding 
passage will have demonstrated sufficiently the reality of my 
goal. I do not see how one who has studied it can doubt that 
it represents fairly accurately a piece of the text of the ori- 
ginal Paneatantra, to which all the versions go back. About 
minor details there may be a possibility for differences of 
opinion; about the general proposition I can see none.—But I 
do not wish to overstate the case; and therefore I shall im- 
mediately add that we occasionally find what seem to be de- 
finite agreements between two or more unrelated versions, 
which nevertheless can not, for one reason or another, be 
attributed to the original Pafcatantra. Usually, as we have 
already seen by a number of instances in the passage just 
quoted, these cases concern petty verbal details, such as can 
without difficulty be assumed to have been altered indepen- 
dently in the same way. But at times—tho not often—we find 
more serious identical variations in different versions, which 
are nevertheless apparently not connected with each other in 
any way. These compel us to be cautious, even when we seem 
to find definite proma facie proof of the readings of the ori- 
ginal. 'To be sure, such cases are not numerous. [I shall append 
a few instances here. I do not mean to assert that the list is 
complete; but I think that these cases are typical, and that 
they will illustrate the kind of reasons which, in my opinion, 
justify us occasionally in denying to the original even impor- 
tant and striking agreements in independent versions. 


Unoriginal agreements between H and Pa.— Reconstruction I vs 35d 
reads in Miiller’s edition (not in Peterson’s!) of the Hitopadesa niipuram 
Sirasa krtam. All the other Sanskrit versions of this stanza have the com- 
parison of “putting a crest-gem on the foot”; but only in Hm is added 
the complementary comparison of “ putting a foot-ornament on the head.” 
It seems scarcely questionable that this is a secondary alteration. Yet 
we find it reappearing in the Pahlavi version of this stanza, at the same 
point in the text! (Sy vs 23... oder den FuBschmuck an den Kopf...) 
The general relations of the texts make it seem certain that the addition 
(which is not hard to understand) was made independently in both places. 
It may go back to the Sanskrit original of the Pahlavi; but if so, that 
proves nothing except that this variant of the stanza was known at that 
early date as a floating stanza or “ gefliigeltes Wort’, and that it persisted 
in later times and was adopted by the scribe of the H ms. to which 
Miiller’s edition goes back ultimately. 


152 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction 


The Pahlavi has at least one verse (Sy I vs 16) which is found in the Hito- 
padega (Hm II. 113, Hp IJ. 101) and in no other ancient Paficatantra version. 


To be sure, it does not occur at the same point of the text in the two | 


versions; and this is in itself a sufficient reason for assuming that it was 
added independently in H (or its archetype) and the Sanskrit original of Pa. 

Unoriginal agreement between H and Jn.—Reconstruction I § 155. 
Here the tricky weaver’s wife calls upon the gods to witness to her 
chastity. In the Jain versions (Spl vs 182, Pn vs 141) and the Hitopadesa 
(Hp vs 100, Hm vs 112) she recites a stanza, known elsewhere, calling 
upon the Lokapalas specifically. The stanza is one which, granting its 
familiarity to the several redactors, might very easily have been suggested 
by the context; and it occurs nowhere else in the Pafic., not even in SP or 
N, the nearest relatives of H. I feel so certain that it is a secondary intrusion 
that | have not included it in my reconstruction, even in parentheses. 

Unoriginal agreements between SP and Jn.—I § 172. SP (ed., i. e. 6) 
and the Jain versions agree in having the barber’s wife, who had already 
lost her nose, further punisht by having her ears cut off. But SP« is 
different; and as the variation is found nowhere else, I think it is surely 
secondary. It is a natural addition. 

After I vs 71, SP ed. (8) has its vs 64, which is found (after a short 
prose insertion) also in Pn, but nowhere else, and not even in SPz. It is 
similar in meaning to the preceding vs, which is original, and was pro- 
bably suggested by that, and inserted independently in SP8 and Pn. 

One might also mention here the apparent agreement between SP, Jn 
and Pa in the sesame-story (II. 2); they all speak of exchanging “ huskt 
for unhuskt” sesame, whereas I believe the original was different. See 
page 106ff. above. 

Unoriginal agreement between Pn and Ks.—I vs 164 cd. This is 
the catch-verse of the story of the Iron-eating Mice (I. 15). The original 
read (with all versions but Pn and Ks, namely, T, SP, N, Spl; the variants 
are unimportant, see Crit. App.) in ed as follows: gajam tatra harec 
chyeno darake ko ’tra vismayah. Pn and Kg read: éyenah kunjarahrt tatra 
kim citram yadi putrahrt (Ks balahrt). The extraordinary correspondence 
is too close to be accidental; yet the original must have read as indicated 
by the other versions. On the other hand there is no sign of secondary 
relations between Pn and Ks, except as they both used T; and T here 
agrees with the other texts. The explanation seems to me to be evidently 
this: the stanza was familiar to both Ptirnabhadra and Ksemendra in 
the form in which they have it as a floating stanza or “ gefliigeltes Wort,” 
and so both of them substituted this version for that which they found 
in their archetypes. 

Unoriginal agreement between T and SP.—III § 9, &c. The names 
of the crow ministers are, according to T and SP: uddipin, saradipin, 
adipin, pradipin (SP proddipin), and cirajivin (SP cirainj°). The Jain 
versions have ujjivin, sarijivin, anujivin, prajivin, and ciratnjivin (Pn 
ciraj®). Somadeva has uddivin, samdivin, adivin, pradivin, cirajivin. Ks 
and Pa have no names. 


. . ad 
Unoriginal agreements 153 


The forms found in the Jain versions are evidently secondary; in Jn 
the first four names are made over on the model of the fifth, using the 
root yiv. We may dismiss them. We have left only I’ and SP, which 
agree practically perfectly, and So, which differs from them. Ordinarily 
we should not hesitate to say that the agreement of T and SP establishes 
the original. But there are special reasons in this case which bid us pause. 
Practically all the names of actors found in the entire Paficatantra are 
‘“nomina-omina ”; they are somehow or other significant of the character 
or fortunes of the persons who bear them. (Apparent exceptions such as 
Karataka in Book I may be due to our ignorance of the real meaning 
of the words.) This is very particularly true of the actors in Book III 
(the crow-king Cloud-color, the owl-king Foe-crusher &c.), and notably 
of the five owl-ministers who form the complement to these five crow- 
ministers, and who are named Red-eye, Cruel-eye, Flame-eye, Crooked- 
nose, and Wall-ear (III § 149, &e.). The fifth of the crow-ministers, Cira(th)- 
jivin, “ Long-lived,” has a good crow-name (crows are proverbially long- 
lived). It seems to me hardly credible that the other four names should 
not have been somehow significant. 

But what do these four names mean according to T and SP? They 
all appear to be formed with the root dip, and so mean apparently 
something like ‘“ Upflaming, Hither-flaming” &c. This seems most in- 
appropriate to crows. What possible application could it have, either to 
crows in general (ef. “ Long-lived”’), or to these crows in particular? If 
it be suggested that it alludes to the fact that the crows in this story 
ultimately destroyed the owls’ home by burning, the reply is that the 
crow who was solely responsible for this plan was the fifth crow-minister, 
Whose name in all versions is Cira(th)jivin—the only name which does 
not contain the root dip! The other four ministers are not even referred 
to in that connexion. Nor can the root dip in these words reasonably be 
understood in the figurative sense of “ illuminating (intellectually) ”; these 
four ministers were exactly the opposite of “ brilliant” in intellect. Their 
only réle in the story is to serve as foils to the wise Cira(1h)jivin; after 
their fruitless maunderings have been overruled by his canny advice, 
they drop out of the story, to appear no more. Certainly the author would 
not have complimented them by giving them names that suggest a connexion 
with the burning-out of the owls, or that suggest intellectual brilliancy. 

In view of all this it seems to me highly probable, if not exactly 
certain, that the true form of their names is preserved in Somadeva 
alone. The forms ud-di-vin &c. are compounds of the root di, to fly, with 
various prefixes, and with the suffix -vin. They mean, then, “Up-soarer” &e. 
These names are entirely appropriate. Evidently they were mangled by 
T’ and SP—presumably independently, since this is the only case of a 
serious agreement between ‘I’ and SP that I have discovered, which 
cannot reasonably be attributed to the original Paficatantra. The com- 
parative rarity and quasi-Prakritic nature of forms of the root di would 
account for the corruption in T’ and SP, on the principle of the Jectio 
facilior. 


CHAPTER VII 


EXAMPLES OF METHOD OF RECONSTRUCTION, CON- 
TINUED: ESTABLISHMENT OF ORIGINAL BY AGREE- 
MENTS OF OTHER TEXTS THAN TANTRAKHYAYIKA 


Purpose of this chapter.—In the passage quoted at length in 
the preceding chapter (I § 34 &c.), most of the versions agree 
pretty closely with each other. It seems desirable to give 
examples of passages in which the general agreement is less 
close, but in which it is nevertheless possible, in my opinion, 
to determine at least the general sense of the original, on the 
basis of a smaller number of versions. Passages occur in which 
the original is, I think, determined by a combination of evi- 
dence from every two or more independent versions that 
could possibly be selected; even after making due allowance 
for the possibility of chance coincidence in secondary varia- 
tions, as illustrated at the end of the last chapter, I think 
that this can hardly be doubted as a general proposition, 
however doubtful some of the individual cases may be. 

In this chapter I shall quote examples (some two hundred in 
all) of all these combinations, except combinations of evidence 
from the Tantrakhyayika and other versions. My reason for 
this omission is two-fold. In the first place, agreements between 
the Tantrakhyayika and all other versions, individually and 
collectively, are particularly common and particularly easy to 
locate. Anyone who wishes to do so can easily get plenty of 
examples. The Tantrakhyayika is, as stated above, on the whole 
the best representative of the original. But it is not the ori- 
ginal, even after its numerous secondary expansions have been 
deducted from it. It contains also omissions and substitutions 
aplenty. And this introduces my second reason for presenting 
this collection of agreements, which establish the original in 
every case without the aid of the Tantrakhydyika. 1 collect 
here more than two hundred cases in which I think Tantra- 


Purpose of this Chapter 155 


khyayika is shown by the agreement of other versions to be 
secondary. Not every case is certain; when I myself feel 
particularly doubtful, I shall say so. Perhaps I may exaggerate 
the certainty of some cases. But granted that some of these 
agreements in other versions than T may be accidental and 
secondary; it does not seem likely that all of them can be. 
Indeed, in quite a number of cases here listed there are (as 
will be noted) special reasons for believing that the T version 
is secondary—aside from the agreement of the others. Nor 
is my list complete; it could without doubt be considerably 
extended. 

Collectively, therefore, the following pages constitute an 
argument—and one of the strongest arguments—against the 
exclusive authority of the Tantrakhyayika. It seems to me 
worth while to present this collection of unoriginal features of 
the T, because of the seriously distorted view of the facts 
which has been given wide publicity by the writings of Pro- 
fessor Hertel. This collection is to be understood as a supple- 
ment, on the positive side, to my attempt above (p. 101 ff.) to 
refute Hertel’s assumption of the “ archetype K,’—which im- 
plies the unique position of T (more especially Ta) among 
Paneatantra versions. In spite of all his reservations, Hertel 
still seems unwilling to give due weight to versions outside 
of the Tantrakhyayika.? 


1 For instance, he says WZKM. 25.4: “Fir die Prosa von K [his ima- 
ginary secondary archetype of all the versions except ‘| kiénnen wir fast 
nur auf den Pahlavi-Rezensionen fuBen. Sie ist in keinem der Sanskrittexte, 
die auf K zuriickgehen, auch nur einigermajfen wértlich erhalten. Im SP ist 
sie stark gekiirzt und die Hss. gehen ibrerseits stark auseinander; im sog. 
textus simplicior ist sie bis auf geringe Reste umgearbeitet und stark er- 
weitert.”” Now the sentence which I here italicize is a wild exaggeration, 
as I think has been sufficiently illustrated by the passage I § 34ff., quoted 
above, p. 130 ff. It is simply false to say that in SP the original text is 
not “auch nur einigermaBen wortlich erhalten.” If the mss. of SP differ 
greatly, that does not mean anything about the original SP archetype, 
which can usually be determined quite easily by comparing the several SP 
subrecensions with the outside versions; and it is clear that that archetype 
preserved the vast majority of both prose and verses of the original, and 
preserved it on the whole as literally as T, perhaps. It is equally false to 
say that the original text is lost or workt over in Simplicior “bis auf 
geringe Reste.” It is true that Spl preserves the original probably less well 


156 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


The aim of this chapter is, then, two-fold: first, to illustrate 
the methods of my reconstruction in less, and even in the 
least favorable- circumstances (whereas its workings in the 
most favorable circumstances have been illustrated above, 
p. 130 ff.); and secondly, to give a large number of instances 
in which I think there is good reason to believe that the 
Tantrakhyayika is secondary. 

It will be understood, then, that agreements noted in the 
following pages can be attributed, in my opinion, to the ori- 
ginal Panecatantra, with virtual certainty or at. least with a 
high degree of probability. In a few cases only have I more 
serious doubts; these will be specifically indicated.—It will be 
noted that the agreements vary greatly in importance, from 
single words up to entire sentences or verses. As stated above, 
I regard the agreements which concern longer passages as 
much more conclusive evidence for the original than those 
which coneern individual words or phrases, because it is much 
easier to suppose that the latter are accidental.— Considerations 
of space make it necessary for me to be brief in my treat- 
ment of the passages here. Full details of the readings of all 
versions will be found in my Critical Apparatus. 


Agreements of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T.—(1) I vss 73 and 
74 are found completely in SP, N, Pn. In T are found only the first 
half of 73 and the second half of 74, joined together as one verse. Both 
So and Pa have clear traces of the parts omitted in T. 

(2) Between II § 50 and § 51 we find in T a block of text which has 
been transposed from a later place. It includes II vs 13, § 54, vs 14, 
§§ 55 and 56. All other texts (namely SP, N, Jn, So, Pa) join § 51 directly 
to §50 and locate the block beginning with II vs 13 at a later place, 
as in my reconstruction. 

(3) In I § 518, after Dustabuddhi has ea Therma ae of steal- 
ing the money, the latter denies the theft and returns the accusation, 
in SP, So, Jn, and Pa (Ar and descendants; not in Sy). T has nothing 
of this; but T inconsistently proceeds in the next sentence with evam 
parasparasankaya vivadamanau ete., implying the original existence of 
Dharmabuddhi’s accusation, which has therefore dropt out in T (per- 





than any other version we have. But it nevertheless contains a very con- 
siderable amount of it, and at times gives us valuable evidence as to the 
original, being more original even than T in not a few cases. It is not 
‘ein ganz neues Werk” (/.c., same page); the word “ganz” gives an 
entirely erroneous impression. 


Agreements of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T 15% 


haps by a kind of haplography, since the words used by Dh. seem to 
have been nearly the same as those used by Du.) 

(4) IIIT § 41. Here, at the assembly of the birds which was choosing 
a king, the crow appears and opposes the choice of the owl. All ver- 
sions (SP, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) except T state that it was a crow; 'T’ has 
here avijnidtandimanam paksinam, and we do not learn that the bird was 
a crow until near the end of the long story, T ed. p. 124, 1. 4 (our § 108), 
where however the fact is mentioned casually in T, in a way which 
seems to suggest a previous statement. 

(5) 1 § 425. The definite statement of the departure of Anagatavidhatr 
is found in SP, H, So, Ks, Jn, Pa (not quite in the same place in H 
and So). IT’ has nothing except the phrase apaydte ’nagatavidhatari in 
§ 426, which of course implies the fact, and might pass as a sufficient 
statement of it, were it not that the agreement of the other versions 
indicates that the original was more definite. 

(6) I § 248. In all versions (SP, H, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) except T the lion’s 
consent to the bargain proposed by the other animals is definitely stated, 
and in all but Jn (which are expanded) in much the same language. 
In T we find only the words tatha krte (& sthite), which leave this point 
to be understood by implication. 

(7) I §§ 443 and 444, describing the. approach of the birds to Garuda 
and their complaint to him about the injury done by the sea to the 
strandbirds. The general sense seems supported by Hm, So, Spl, Pn, Sy 
and Ar (a brief illusion also in Ks). While the texts are not close to 
each other in most of the language contained here, it seems to me that 
the correspondence of meaning is close enuf to make it at least highly 
probable that the original had something of the sort, tho it is entirely 
omitted in T, SP, and Hp (Hm alone retaining—but with some traces 
of the language of the others !—the original which apparently must have 
been in Ur-SP). 

(8) I § 866, end. The lion, speaking of the assurances he had given — 
to the camel, says—in Jn, tat katham (Pn adds svayam eva) vyapddayami; 
in SP, tat katham druhyate (« here inferior); in So, kathan hanmity; in 
Sy (after the following verse, that is, slightly transposed), Ich habe es 
eingeladen und werde es nicht dem Tode tiberantworten.—Nothing like 
this in 'T. 

(9) I § 434. In Pa, Spl, Pn, So, and Hm (cf. No. 7 above, in which 
Hm also has a feature in common with the other versions, which is not 
in Hp or SP), occurs the equivalent in sense of the word srutapiirva- 
tadalapena (the sea, “having heard what the strandbird said,” &c.). 
It is lacking in T, SP, and Hp, tho of course implied in them by the 
story. 

(10) I § 590. After killing Satnjivaka, the lion sits atisokdrtah saninth- 
svasya (SP); ef. H visrantah sasoka, Ks anutapdrtah, Spl tadgunasma- 
ranardrahrdayah, Pn prasantakopo—smrtapirvasnehavasat karunaya ba- 
spardre nayane pramrjya sapascattapam; Sy Aber kaum hatte er sich 
von seinem Zorne erholt, da machte er sich Skrupeln;—Und er empfand 


158 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


Reue und sa8 triiben Sinnes da. Similarly Ar.—Of this description T 
has nothing, except as it may be considered implied in the speech of 
the lion which follows, or in the words asrgdigdham panim pramrjya. 

(11) III § 48. The appeal of the thirsty elephants to their king is 
practically omitted in T, which reads only paritraydsman varitarpane- 
nett; note particularly that it has no correspondent to the idea exprest - 
by H mrtarha iva, Ks vinasia eva, Spl mrtaprayad, Pn mrtadvasthah, Sy 
daB wir nicht vor Durst sterben, Ar JCap in hoe vivere non possumus 
(the same sense also in SP). By way of compensation T inserts a reply 
by the elephant-king to his followers, which is found in no other version 
and is doubtless secondary. 

(12) Ill § 257. By way of indicating that the crows burned the home 
of the owls, T has simply asdu cirajivt yat krtavan, tad bhavatam ana- 
khyatam viditam eva. All others (SP, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) have the definite 
statement of the burning. 

(13) III § 182 is omitted in T, which fails to give the thief’s reason 
for objecting to the ogre’s seizing the brahman first, before he had 
stolen the cattle. This reason is given in substantially identical terms 
in SP, So, Pn, and Pa. In So and Pa, to be sure, it is put with § 180, 
where the thief first states his intention. This simply means that So and 
Pa have combined § 180 and § 182—a very natural procedure, the like 
of which happens constantly, and which need imply no interdependence. 
T, on the other hand, has omitted § 182 by a kind of haplology (since 
it contained a speech by the thief which was in part very similar to 
the one found in § 180). SP and Pn have preserved the original very 
accurately. 

(14) Il § 78 end. The phrase mamdpiha nirvedo ’sti or close equivalent 
is found in SP, (H, less close,) So, Spl, Pn, and Pa, but omitted in T, 
altho in the crow’s reply, immediately following, T reads kim bhavato 
‘pi nirvedakaranam. 

(15) IT §§ 121—123, see below, p. 177. 

(16) Il § 198. SP, Spl, Pn, So, Ks, and Pa contain the statement that 
the crow informed the others of the deer’s misfortune. T briefly, taval 
laghupatanakena ksipram eva hiranya dnitah (the last corresponds to § 200). 

(17) Il § 229. T mentions only the mouse as escaping. All the others 
(SP, Jn, So, Ks, Pa) speak of all three, Jn and Pa making specifie mention 
of mouse, crow, and deer, which is clearly original. This is a ease in 
which T is most obviously secondary; of course all the companions but 
the tortoise must have escaped. 

(18) I § 290. Of the louse that lived in the bed of a king, the original 
says (according to my reconstruction); sé ca tasya mahipate raktam dsva- 
dayanti sukhena ciram kalam nayamdnd tisthati. So Spl, except that it 
omits ciram. Pn has a passage similar in sense tho verbally different; 
Sy also “die biB den Mann, wenn er schlief, behutsam, da® er es nicht 
merkte, und wohnte da lange Zeit, ohne daS jemand sie fing”; so also 
Ar. More briefly So, ciram dsid alaksitad. SP contains the word bahukalam 
(a cira-k°) in the preceding passage. T has nothing of all this. 


bi 
Agreements of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T 159 


(19) III § 6. In speaking of the owls’ attack on the crows: SP and 
Spl ratrav agatya, So ratrav...etya, Ks nisi, Sy nichtlicherweile, Ar one 
night. T and Pn omit the phrase. 

(20) V § 39 end. SP, H, So, Ks, Jn, and Pa all agree in having a 
phrase to this effect: (krsna)sarpam ca (samipe) khandikrtam drstva. Only 
T lacks anything of the sort. 

(21) I § 211. The heron takes the fish which he intends to eat, and— 
SP silaprsthe patayitva; So sildtale vinyasya; Spl natidire silam samasadya 
tasyaim aksipya; Pn Ssildtalasydikadesopari; Sy auf einem nahen Hiigel. 
Nothing of the sort in T or H. But that the original must have had it is 
indicated (aside from the agreement of the others) also by T’s version 
of § 215, where the heron, carrying the crab, taptasilaydm avatirnah. 

(22) I § 562. SP kstnavibhavo vanikputrah; Jn jirnadhano (Pn naduko) 
nama vanikputrah; So tuldsesah pitryarthat...vaniksutah; Sy ein armer 
Kaufmann; but T kstnabandhavo (mistake for °vibhavo!) vaniksutah. 

(23) I § 525. When Dustabuddhi says that the tree will bear witness 
for him, the judges express astonishment, and then add, in all versions 
(SP, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) except T, that they will take the tree’s testimony 
on the next day. T entirely omits this last. 

(24) I § 242. The beasts, making their offer to the lion, promise him 
one victim “each day for your food”. The two words pratyaham and 
aharartham are found kteratim in SP, H, and Pn; Spl has pratidinam, 
bhaksartham; So dine-dine, aharaya; Ks less exactly, sada, and ksayam or 
ksaye,; Sy jeden Tag (omitting the other word, but ef. Ar); Ar, JCap 
omni die, pro tuo cibo. It seems clear that both of these words (or very 
close equivalents) were in the original. T has neither. 

(25) I § 239. The beasts who are being destroyed by the lion “ come 
together” and address him. The word militva is found literatim in SP, 
H, and both Jn versions; So has sambhiiya, Ks sametya; Sy nothing, but 
Ar seems to point to an equivalent (JCap habito consilio inter se). Only 
T, therefore, omits the word. 

(26 and 27) I §§ 90 and 91. Damanaka asks permission of Pitigalaka 
to go and investigate the strange noise. The lion grants him permission 
specifically in Jn, So, Pa (Ar; Sy has lacuna here); not in SP ed., but 
one « ms. has bhadra sukhena gaccha. Nothing in T. The text reads much 
more smoothly with some such phrase included, tho it is not absolutely 
necessary to the sense.—The same applies to § 91, containing the definite 
statement that D. took leave of P. and went; so Jn, So, Ks, Pa; not in 
T; represented in SP by the single word gatva. 


Agreements of Ur-SP, Jn, and Pa.—(1) I § 98 (in which Damanaka 
returns to Pingalaka after investigating the noise made by the bull) 
contains in Jn the words damanako ’pi pingalakasakisam dgatya (Spl 
gated) pranamyopavistah. The originality of this seems supported by SP 
|\damanaka| agatya pingalakam pranamyopavistah; cf. H pranamyopavistau 
(both Karataka and Damanaka come in H); and Ar Als Dmng vor den 
Lowen trat (lacuna in Sy). T omits all this. 





160 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


(2) I § 99, immediately after the preceding. SP, H, Jn, and Pa agree 
in making Pifigalaka open the conversation by asking Damanaka whether 
he has seen the creature who made the noise (or, in Ar, “ Was hast du 
ausgerichtet ?”), This is dramatically better than T, which omits any 
such question and lets Damanaka open the conversation. The verbal 
agreement between SP, H, and Jn is very close (Jn kim drstam bhavata 
tat sattvam; SP drstan kim™tvaya; H tvaya sa drstah, or drstah sah, 
omitting tvayda). To be sure, SP« omits the phrase, as does T; but then, 
SPa also omits Damanaka’s reply, which is found in I and is clearly 
original. In short, SP« is in this place obviously secondary, and SP6 
more original, 

(3) I § 142. See below, p.178. Note that T makes no mention of the 
weayer’s beating his wife, which all other versions have (SP, H, Jn, Pa; 
the whole story is omitted in Br), and which no good husband would 
have failed to do under the circumstances. T is badly confused at this 
point. 

(4) I § 207. The lying tale of the crafty heron, told to the crab, is 
repeated by him to the fishes, according to SP, Spl, Sy, and Ar. In the 
others we must assume that the fishes overheard it, which is quite pos- 
sible a priovt; but the agreement is probably original. 

(5) I § 224. In T the jackal advises the crows to get a suvarnasitram 
simply, not specifying an owner. The others are fuller. SP kasyacid 
dhanikasya (grhat), SPa rajamahisydés, Jn kasyapi dhanino (Spl adds 
rajamatyadeh pramddinah); H more lengthy, the kanakasitra is to be 
taken from a radjaputra; Sy simply Leuten (einen Gegenstand zu ent- 
fiihren), but Ar Wolff yon dem Schmuck eines Weibes, and so JCap, 
KF. The versions of SP«, H, and Ar seem to be due to anticipations of 
§ 228. The original doubtless said simply “from a rich man,” tho it may 
possibly have added something like “a king or the like.” 

(6) I § 806. The servants of the king who has been bitten by the flea 
“bring a light” to look for it in SP (dipikam dddya), Pn (dipikam 
grhitva), and Ar (JCap candela accensa). This seems likely to be original. 

(7) I § 816, see p. 167 below. 

(8) I § 375. In T (and Br) the speech of the crew is reduced to the 
bare offer of his body to the lion. In SP and H he first says: “ We 
have not been able to find food, and Your Majesty is weakened by long 
fasting.” This is dramatically a better opening, and is supported by Jn 
and Pa (Pa lacks the equivalent of dhdro na praptah). 

(9) 1 § 454. Damanaka’s description of how the lion will behave when 
he sees Satnjivaka contains tvatsammukham iksamdnas, or words to that 
effect, in H, Jn, and Pa; not in T or SP. 

(10) I § 506. Dustabuddhi is proposing that the treasure-trove be not 
divided at once, but that each should take only a part of it for the 
present. In T’ he does not say what is to be done with the rest. So and 
Ks are too much abbreviated to show anything; but SP has thdiva 
orksamiile (« omits vr°) niksipya; Spl atraiva vanagahane kvipi bhiimau 
niksipya; Pn (otherwise mainly with T) bhiimau niksipya; and Ar (Sy has 


Agreements of Ur-SP, Jn, and Pa 161 


a lacuna here) we will bury the rest in a safe place. Since this is just 
what they proceed to do, it is a priort probable that Dustabuddhi sug- 
gested it, as represented in the non-T versions. 

(11) I § 507. Just after the preceding. No reply is quoted from 
Dharmabuddhi to Dustabuddhi’s proposal in T, Br. SP has tenoktam: 
yathaha bhavan. Similarly Jn. Ar Said the thotless man: Agreed. (La- 
cuna in Sy.) 

(12) I § 529. Dustabuddhi has just told his father that it is “up to 
him” to save the money. SP continues: pitaha, kim atra karyam. So Sy: 
Sein Vater sprach zu ihm, Und ich, was soll ich tun? Ar similarly. So 
also Spl, more fully. No reply of the father is mentioned in T, Pn, Br. 

(13) I § 541. The crab, after advising the herons to strew fish from 
the mongoose’s hole to the snake’s, explains here that the mongoose will 
come out and eat the fish and so come to the snake’s hole and kill it. 
So, in quite similar terms, H, Jn, and Pa. SP omits all, and T has very 
briefly : tatas ta evadinamaghatayisyanti. 

(14) Il §4 end. Here occurs a clause which seems to be found cor- 
respondingly in H, Jn, and Pa; but the correspondence is far from 
perfect and the originality of the clause is therefore uncertain. See 
Crit. App. 

(15) II vs 15¢e. SP, N, H, Jn, Pa sutaptam; T ataptam. See p. 105 f. 

(16) If § 149. The original may not have been so long as in my re- 
construction (which follows Jn); but SP, H, and Pa prove clearly that 
something of the sort was here. See Crit. App. T is very confused in 
its arrangement of the entire passage in which this occurs. 

(17) IL vs 43b. SP, N, H, Pn varam klaibyam punsam na ca para- 
kalatrabhigamanam. TV mrtyuh slaghyo tor klaibyam punsam. Pa with the 
non-T versions (Sy besser ein Kastrat als ein Ehebrecher). This is ob- 
viously the proper reading ; even Hertel can hardly deny, I should think, 
that T is here secondary. 

(18) II vs 48 is found in SP, N, H, Spl, Pn and Pa (Ar), but not in T. 

(19) Order of II vss 70—72 and § 174. These three verses and one 
prose section contain all that is original of more than two pages of 'T’s 
text (from A177 to A 182, including vss 126—142 of T). In T this long 
passage comes after the speech of the crow (our § 176, and vss 73—77). 
T thus divides the speech of the tortoise in two, separating the two 
parts of it by the speech of the crow. This is superficially indicated in 
T itself by the obvious way in which T A 182 duplicates A176; the 
tortoise has to conclude his speech twice, and does it with almost the 
same words. It seems evident to me that the other versions are original 
in putting these vss and this § with the rest of the speech of the tor- 
toise. Hertel’s statements of correspondences in his Table (Tantr. Einl. 
p- 100 ff.) are erroneous for this passage. 

(20) Il § 175. T hiranyo, for laghupatanako of SP, H, Jn, and Pa— 
which latter is required by the sense. Hertel assumes a lacuna, in 
which the mouse said something or other, and then the crow’s speech 
was introduced. But this is most unlikely. No other version represents 

Edgerton, Pancatantra. II, 11 


162 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued. 


the mouse as saying anything. T has simply made a careless slip, say- 
ing the mouse when it means (or should mean) the crow. Other cases of 
the sort occur elsewhere (e. g. in our II § 190 H says hiranyako by mis- 
take for mantharako, and in our II § 224 Pa says the deer by mistake 
for the mouse). 

(21—24) II vss 75, 77, 88, and 89. These four verses are found in SP, 
N, H, Pn, and Pa, but not m T. 

(25) III § 64. Here, where the hare first speaks to the elephant-king, 
he would naturally declare at once that he is sent by the moon as a 
messenger. He does so in all the versions (SP, H, Jn, So, Ks, Pa) except 
T, where he says he is a messenger, but does not say by whom he is 
sent until later (§ 65).—So and Ks run together §§ 64 and 65, so that 
they cannot be counted as evidence against 'I’s version. 

(26) III vs 44 and preceding prose. See above, p. 111 ff. 

(27) IIL § 226. The ascetic says to his wife, of the girl who has been 
changed from a mouse: Pn, tyam tava duhitotpanna; SP tam svagar- 
bhajatam iva; Sy wie deine Tochter, und liebe es wie ein eigenes; so 
Ar. T contains no such suggestion or comparison; altho in the sequel 
the ascetic speaks of her as being in place of a daughter to him. 

(28) III vs 80, see below, p. 167. 

(29) HI vs 86a. SP, N, Pn bhrtyah, T mitrah; Pa supports bhrtyah 
(Sy ein Diener und BeisaB). 

(30) IIL vs 91 b. SP, N, Pn dharmah; T bhrtyah. Pa (Ar; not in Sy) 
seems to support dharmah (JCap [mala] doctrina, OSp el [mal] ensefiado). 

(31) III vs 99. See above, p. 85 f. 

(52) V § 26. The statement that the contents of the broken pot cover- 

ed the brahman himself is clearly needed, as is proved by the eatch- 
verse, V vs 2, c, padndurah sete. Nevertheless T’ omits it, or at least 
hardly makes it plain by its tasydivopari satakapalo vydviddhasaktur 
nipatitah. Contrast SP saktudhilidhisaritatanuh, Jn saktubhih (Pn adds 
ca) panduratan gatah, Sy und der Honig und das Ol ergo8 sich auf 
seinen Kopf &c. It seems clear, at least, that the other versions are more 
closely in accord with the catch-verse than T. 
- Agreements of Ur-SP, Jn, and So or Ks.—(1) I § 253. After the 
lion has askt the hare to show him the alleged second lion, the hare re- 
plies, in SP: sa dha, tvaritam dgaccha svamin (« °chatu svdmi) tam darsaya- 
miti. Likewise Jn: Sasaka aha, yady evam tarhy (Pn tad) dgacchatu svami. 
Also So: dgatya drsyataim devety uktva. Not in T, Pa, H, Ks. 

(2) I § 352 end. The lion’s retainers start out to look for food, at his 
request. Before § 353, in which the crow, jackal, and panther take coun- 
sel together without the camel, occurs in SP, Jn, and So the following: 
SP na kimeit praptam; Jn yavan na kimeit sattvam (Pn tr, sattvam kim- 
cin na) pasyanti; So (a)navdpya tat. In the other versions, including T, 
this is not stated. 

(3) I § 391. The female strandbird is described as asannaprasava, 
literatim, in SP, H, Ks, Spl, and (praty-ds°) Pn. T has the synonym 
prasosyamdnaya ; So dhrtagarbha. Here T is secondary in exact language 


Agreements of Ur-SP, Jn, and So or Ks 163 


(guaranteed by agreement of SP, H, Jn, and Ks), tho it has a word of 
the same meaning. 

(4) I § 491. The ape is “angered” by the officious bird; kwpit(en)a, 
SP, Spl; cf. So eukopa, Ks bhartsayan. Not in T, Pn, Pa. 

(5) II § 5. The original name of the owl-king was clearly <Ari- 
mardana, “ Foe-crusher;” so SP, Jn; Ks has the synonym ripumarda ; 
So avamarda; T apamarda, but the mss. readings, see Hertel ad loc., 
ed. p. 108, n. to 1. 7, seem to me to point to an original satrwmarda (Ta 
satrumardundma; ‘V6 [tasya ca] satrur apamardo nama &ce.), which like 
Ks’s form would be a synonym of arimarda(na). 

(6) III §§ 98 and 100. The name of the hypocritical cat was clearly 
Dadhikarna in the original, as shown by SPe, Pn, and Ks, which agree 
on this form. It means “ Curd-ear” and is otherwise known as a cat’s 
name. SP ed. (f) has secondarily dirghavdla, ‘‘ Long-tail;” Spl tiksna- 
danstra, an ominous name suggested by what this cat did to the part- 
ridge and hare; 'T udadhikarna, “ Ocean-ear,” which of course makes no 
sense and is an evident corruption for dadhikarna. 

(7) III §§ 165 and 166, order. These two sections are put after Story 6 
in SP, Pn, Br; they evidently belong there. Pa omits them. In T (6; 
« omits Story 6) they are put before Story 6. This is responsible for the 
awkwardness which Hertel finds in the introduction to this story, and 
which leads him to the erroneous conclusion that the story itself is a 
secondary insertion. See p. 63, note 6. 

Agreements of Ur-SP, Pa, and So or Ks, against T (and Jn).— 
(1) I §§ 18—22 and vss 4, 5; order. See above, p. 80ff. The order of 
T, followed by Pn and apparently by Spl so far as it preserves the 
passage, is clearly secondary. 

(2) I § 20. See p. 84. 

(3) I § 30. See p. 84 f. 

(4) I § 103. In the preceding section Damanaka has offered to bring 
Samjivaka into the lion’s presence. The lion now replies, in SP, So, 
and Pa, telling him to do so. In T’, Pn this speech is omitted, leaving 
a gap in the story, which Spl undertook to fill in by an obviously 
secondary speech of the lion; its contents are quite different from the 
others. Evidently the Ur-T left out the lion’s speech. 

(5) I § 254. The hare shows the lion the well, where the other lion 
was alleged to be, and says: SP tatra pasya; H atragatya (Hm tatra°) 
pasyatu svami; So thantas tam (DP. ihantahstham) sthitam pasya; Sy Hier 
ist er.—In 'T, Ks we are not told that the hare said anything. 

(6) I § 311? (Doubtful case as far as SP is concerned; see p. 174.) 

(7) I § 507. Dustabuddhi and Dharmabuddhi bury the dinars which 
the latter has found vrksamile, SP, So; an der Wurzel eines Baumes, 
Sy (and Ar likewise). T’ only kutracit; Pn, Ks only bhiimdu (So also has 
Lhiitale); but in the sequel we find that they really were at the foot of a tree. 

(8) I § 554. That the money was given back to Dharmabuddhi, after 
the true facts of the case had been discovered, is stated only in SP, So, 
and Pa, not in T, Jn, Ks. 

1) he 


164 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


(9) III § 26. In the long speech of the wise crow-minister Cira(tn)- 
jivin to the crow-king occurs a phrase which seems to me quite clearly 
to correspond in SP, So, and Pa, and for which I find no equivalent in 
T (tho the order of most of the versions is pretty badly confused at 
this point and it is not easy to be absolutely sure about correspondences). 
SP reads tad evam punar bravimi: yuddham na sreya iti, samdhir apy 
asakyo ’rthah sahajavairanubandhanam. So kah samdhir dita eva kah, asrsti 
vairam kakdinadm ulukais tatra ko vrajet. Pa, Sy Und nun, wo du mein 
Gutachten gefordert hast, ist es, um es 6ffentlich zu sagen, dieses: Wie ich 
nicht den Krieg wiinsche, ebensowenig wiinsche ich, daf wir die Zah- 
lung eines Tributes auf uns nehmen und uns demiitigen. (Ar similarly.) 
—The Jn versions of course could not have this passage, since they 
have wholly altered the first part of Book II]; and in the greatly ab- 
breviated Ks we should not expect to find it. Of the versions where 
it would be reasonable to expect this passage, therefore, it is lacking 
only in T. 

(10) III § 54. See p. 86f. 

(11) III §§ 71 and 72. See p. 87. 

(12) III § 122. The rogues, seeing the brahman carrying the goat, say 
to themselves, according to SP: (tats cintitam), brahmano ‘yam chagam tyda- 
jyatam. Cf. So dhiirtais chagam jihirsubhih; Ar, JCap—consilium ut ipsum 
sibi aufferrent. Nothing is said about their proposing to eat the goat ex- 
cept in T and Jn. To be sure, they naturally did eat the goat when 
they got it; so it is possible that the original definitely mentioned this 
as their purpose. But I think the agreement of the non-T versions is an 
indication that the contrary is more likely. | 

(18) V § 41. The wife of the hasty brahman comes home and finds him, 
and—as SP says—vydapdditam nakulam satadha khandikrtam (so «) sarpam 
ca dystva—asks him for an explanation (SP kim idam iti; 'T similarly). 
In So and Pa the reference to the dead mongoose and snake (only the 
mongoose, So) is put into the speech of the wife (So, nakulah kim hatas 
tvayd, iti; Sy, und was bedeutet das, da’ das Wiesel und die Schlange 
getoétet sind?—likewise Ar), This may have been the way the original 
read. At any rate SP, So, and Pa seem to indicate that the original had 
some reference to the snake and the mongoose, or at least to the mon- 
goose; ‘I has none. The Jn versions are quite independent of the others 
at this point. 

Agreements of Pa, Jn, and So or Ks.—(1) I § 16. Pn Sandith-sandir ; 
So sanaih; not in other Skt. versions, but Sy gemiichlich, JCap paulisper, 
KF little by little. 

(2) 1 § 116 end. After the lion’s speech of weleome, Sarnjivaka replies 
in Pn: yatha deva ajndpayati. So has tatheti; and Sy says Snzbug dankte 
ihm. The other versions do not represent Sathjivaka as saying anything. 
But this might not impossibly be an independent addition in the three 
versions. 

(3) I § 196 end. The jackal, speaking to the two crows whose young 
have been eaten by the serpent, says in Spl: ndtra visaye visddah karyah, 


Agreements of Pa, Jn, and So or Ks 165 


niinam sa lubdho nopayam antarena vadhyah syat. Pn similarly. Ks samas- 
vasihi sarpo ‘yam vinaksyati. Sy suche vielmehr Mittel und Wege (=updaya), 
die Schlange zu téten, ohne dich selbst zugrunde zu richten. 

(4) I § 256. Jn, So, and Ar say that after compassing the lion’s death 
the hare returned and told the story to the other. animals. This is omitted 
in the other versions, even in Sy; they end with the lion’s death. 

(5) I $3873. In Jn, So, and Pa the crow, speaking to his fellow-con- 
spirators, develops his plan for compassing the camel’s death in similar 
terms. It is omitted altogether in SP and merely hinted at in ‘Tl’. Pa and 
So are particularly close to each other, and the original may have been 
more like Pa than like Jn, which I have perforce adopted in the recon- 
struction, since it is the only prose Sanskrit version available. 

(6) 1 § 482. This section, in which the male strandbird reassures his consort 
after she has exprest her fears in the form of two stories, is found only in 
Pn, So, and Pa; its originality is not certain but seems to me highly probable. 

(7) I $486. The female strandbird alludes to the fact that she had 
predicted the disaster, in So yan mayoktam abhit tava, Spl kathitam asin 
maya te, Pn uktas tvam asakrn maya, Sy Habe ich es doch kommen sehen 
und bei Zeiten zu dir gesagt, Ar similarly. No such phrase in T, SP, H. 

(8) I § 513. Dustabuddhi motivates his desire for money by saying, 
So asti me vyayah, Spl bahukutumba vayam vittabhavat sidimah, Sy Ich 
brauche bares Geld zum Verausgaben, Ar similarly. Others omit this. 

(9) Il $103. The ascetic tells his guest that he was making a noise 
only to seare away the mouse (of which he has spoken in the preceding 
section); so distinctly Jn, So, Ks, and in Pa mingled with the preceding; 
in T, SP, H only implied. 

(10) II § 199. Only Spl, Ks, and Pa: specifically mention the fact that 
the crow calls upon the mouse to free the deer. Of course this is implied 
in the others; and the definite statement may be an independent expansion 
in the three versions. 

(11) LI § 101. Neither 'T nor SP quotes any words as spoken by the 
hare and the partridge to the cat in asking him to be their judge. Jn 
represent them as saying: bhos tapasvin dharmadesaka, dvayor vivado var- 
tate, tad dharmasdstradvarenasmakam (Pn sastrendvayor) nirnayam deh. 
So srnu nau bhagavan nydyam (Brockhaus nydyyam) tapasvi tvam hi 
dharmikah. Sy Wir haben einen Rechtshandel miteinander, darum bitten 
wir, sei unser Richter. Ar undoubtedly agreed with Sy originally; some 
versions, evidently secondarily, have no direct quotation. 

(12) III § 186. The thief and the ogre fall to quarreling about which 
shall attack the brahman first. Then, Pn evam srutvotthaya brahmanah 
sivadhano bhitvestadevatimantradhyanendtmanam riksasid udgurnalagu- 
dena ca ciurdd goyugam raraksa. So utthaydattakrpdane ca tasmin raksoghna- 
japini, brahmane. Ks vipras tayor idam srutva balamantrair jaghana tiu. 
Sy Und der Asket erwachte samt seinen Hausgenossen aus dem Schlafe 
und sie standen auf. T does not attribute any action to the brahman 
at all; in SP we find what are apparently various secondary attempts 
to fill the gap, quite different in the different mss., and none resembling 


166 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


the original as determined by Jn and Br (very close to each other), and 
partly also by Pa. 

(13) II] § 196 end. The carpenter, after telling his wife that he is 
called away on business, adds in Jn tatra dinani katicil lagisyanti. tat 
tvayad kimeit pdtheyam mama yogyam vidheyam (Spl karyam). So tat tvaya 
mama saktvadi patheyam diyatam iti. Sy darum richte mir den Proviant 
(patheyam, identical word in So and Jn) her fiir so und so viel Tage 
(dindnt katicil), daB ich ihn mit mir fiihre. Nothing of this in T, SP. 

Agreements of Ur-SP and both Jn versions, against T.—(1) KM 
vs 3. This is found in SP, N, H, Spl, and Pn, but not in T. 

(2) I vs 6. In ec, SP best ms. reads eva, with Jn (but SP ed. with N 
and H bhiimdu, so that it is probably more likely that Ur-SP read 
bhimau); T has naro.—In d, SP, N, H, Spl and Pn vanarah; T markatah. 

(8) I vs 8. Found in SP, N, H, Jn; not in T. 

(4; I § 40. SP, Jn bhito bhitaparivaras ca; T bhirus ca bhiruparivaras 
(8 °pare?) ca (same sense, but unoriginal language). 

(5) I vs 21. SP, N, Jn dhunvantam, T dhirtam tam; see p. 109. 

(6) 1 § 49. SP, Jn durdradhya hi (SP ed. omits hi, but « has it) nara- 
patayah (Jn rajanah, SP ed. nrpah); VT durarohas ca (8 hi) narapatayah; 
So durdsadas ca... twvarah; Sy es ist schwer, einem Herrscher zu dienen. 

(7) I vs 40. Found only in H and Jn; not quite at the same place; of doubt- 
ful originality, since it might easily have been suggested by the context 
and inserted independently in H and Ur-Spl. 

(8) 1 § 62. SP, H, Jn avayna; T anddarah (synonym). 

(9) I vs 55. In d, T has vikriyam, for SP, H, Jn vikramam, which 
seems better. Pa (Sy bekriegt = karoti vikramant?) seems rather to support 
the non-l’ version, but is perhaps not decisive. 

(10) I § 309. SP, H sinhah (SP pivigalaka aha. H rajaha): katham asdu 
jnatavyo drohabuddhir itt. Pn pingalaka aha: katham jineyo ’sau maya 
dustabuddhir iti, kas casya yuddhamargah. itt. Spl pivgalaka aha: bho da- 
manaka, kah pratyayo ’tra visaye yatah sa mamopari dustabuddhih.— Not 
in Br, Pa. T only pitgalaka aha: bhadra kas tasya yuddhamarga iti. 

(11) Ivs 98 ab. SP, N, H, Jn, T: bhavasnigdhair (for bhava, SP citram, 
SP« prajnah, N, H vijnaih; T snigdhair eva) upakrtam api (T hy upakrti- 
gandir) dvesyatam eti (Spl yati) kimecic (T kascic), chathyad (SP, N, H 
saksad) anyair apakrtam api (T apakrtisatath) pritim evopayati (Spl varies). 
Ur-SP and Jn agree in the main against T. 

(12) I vs 140b. SP, Pn patha na yanti ye, N vacanam na yanti yo 
(read ye), Spl na yanti ye patha, T na yadnti vartmana. 

(13) I vs 164b. SP, N, Jn yatra khddanti misakah (Spl osha): T kha- 
date yatra miisakah. 

(14) II § 57. SP, H hiranyakah (SP« adds dha; H kim canyat for hi): 
satrupakso bhavan asmakam. uktam ca (H editat). Jn hiranya(ka) dha: bhos 
tvayd vairind saha katham (Pn katham before tvayd) maitrin karomi. uktam 
ca.—Not in the others. 

(15) If §172. SP tad bhadra hrte ‘py arihe samtapo na karaniyah. 
iti matvad samtapo ’rthandso ’yam (?) tvayad na kartavyah. Jn tad bhadra 


Agreements of Ur-SP and both Jn versions, against T 167 


hiranya(ka) evam jniatvd dhanavisaye (Pn adds tvaya) samtipo (Pn -samtoso) 
na karyah, wuktam ca.—Not in others; 'T is here very much confused. The 
verbal correspondence is too close to be accidental, in my opinion. 

(16) II § 173. Like the preceding, found only in SP and Jn (this time 
not in H), and corresponding only in general sense, not in exact language; 
but pretty surely original, in my opinion. See Crit. App. 

(17) Il vs la. SP, N, Jn piirvavirodhitasya (N °tesu); T pirvaparayi- 
tasya. 

(18) III vs 65e. SP, Jn priyakadraka bhadram te (N tvatprasadat tato 
bhadra); T (only in 6) priyas caris ca (v.1. priyah cauro ’pi) bhadra tvam 
(v. l. tvam bhadra). 

(19) III vs 80b. SP, N, Spl vajrapatavisame; Pn vakyavajravisame; 'T 
vakravakyanipune. Sy probably reflects the word vajra with “ein Wort 
... das schlimmer war als eine Pfeilspitze.” ~* 

(20) V vs 3a. SP, N, Jn kupariiatam (SP ed. °nam, v.1. °tam); T ku- 
matinatan. 

(21) If vs 72a. T, Jn danena tulyo nidhir (T vidhir) asta nanyah; SP, 
N na ddnatulyo nidhir asti kascit. nidhi is intrinsically better than vidhi; 
“there is no treasure-store like generosity’, that is, giving away money 
is the best kind of hoarding. One T ms. corrects to nidhir. 

Agreements of Ur-SP and Spl, against T (and Pn).—(1) KM vs 1. 
Not in Kielhorn-Biihler’s edition, but in mss. of Spl according to Hertel. 
In ce Hertel says that Spl has viduse with SP, N, against T mahate. 

(2) KM vs 4. Found in SP, N, Spl only. 

(3) I § 516. Damanaka, speaking to Samjivaka, says in SP« and H yady 
api rdjavisvaso na kathaniyah, tathapi. Spl mitra, svaminam sacivanam 
mantrabhedam kartum na yujyate. (verses inserted.) tathapi. Nothing of 
this in T, Pn; it is very possibly represented in Pa by Sy Es ist etwas, 
was man nicht 6ffentlich sagen darf. Ich habe es nicht gesagt, weil ich 
nicht meinen eigenen Schaden suchen wollte. (This seems not to be found 
in Ar.) 

(4) I §§ 336, 339, 342 &ec., 381. The name of the camel in Story 8 is given 
in SP and Spl consistently as Kathanaka. In Tit is usually Arathanaka, 
but one ms., p, reads kathanaka in § 381. In Pn it is regularly vikata, in 
H variously citrakarna, °varna, or chidrakarna; Pn and H are obviously 
secondary. Besides the variant of ms. p in § 381, I find other evidence 
that 'T goes back to a reading kathanaka. In § 339 T reads vayaso ?bravit: 
akhyatanaémostro "yam iti. Hertel renders: Das ist ein Kamel; es hat mir 
[diesen] seinen Namen genannt. But it seems to me that the words can 
hardly mean this. They seem to mean, taken naturally: “'This is a camel 
named Akhyata.” I think a@khyata can only be an equivalent, or a blundering 
substitute, for the original kathanaka. Both are understood as meaning 
something like “ Fabulous”; the camel is distinctly said to be an unheard- 
of and “ridiculous” beast to the lion and his retainers. Pn’s version of 
§ 3839 is based on T, and is an attempt to rationalize it: ustro ’yam loke 
prakhydtandma, “ this is a camel, his name is well-known in the world.”’— 
Note further T’s text § 352, where the name krathanaka is first mentioned: 


168 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


evam uktvd (8 tds) te py utthaya krathanakena saha vandntaram pravistah. 
As if the camel’s name were already known! (Hertel feels constrained to 
put in a footnote in his translation: “ Dies ist also der Name des Kamels”’; 
he evidently recognizes the harshness, without being quite willing to 
admit it openly.) But T has not previously mentioned the camel's name— 
unless my interpretation of § 339 is correct. In any case T’s version is 
inconsistent with itself. Either (as I think) it uses a corrupt form of the 
name in § 839, or (as Hertel thinks) it mentions no name before § 352 
but there speaks as if the name had been previously mentioned.—The 
name krathanaka is meaningless, in any case, and can hardly have been 
the original form. It seems to me very clear that the original had katha- 
naka with SP and Spl. 

(5) Lvsiv4d. T, Pn krtyam (metrically inferior) for SP, N, H, Spl krtam. 

Agreements of Ur-SP and Pn, against T (and Spl).—(1) I § 4. SP, 
Pn sdrthavahah prativasati sma; 'T, Spl sresthiputro (Spl vanikputro) ba- 
bhiwva. Cf. p. 88 above. 

(2) I vs 5. Found in SP, N, H, Pn; not in ‘T, Spl; perhaps reflected in 
So and Pa. See p. 81 above. 

(3) vs 15. Found in SP (ed.) and Pn at the same place, but nowhere else 
(not in N, H, and not even in SPa); very likely a secondary insertion, since 
itis a verse that might easily have been suggested by the preceding one. 

(4) I § 214. The heron refers to the crab’s flesh as apirva in SP, H, 
Pn only. (In Pa the entire section is omitted; it is greatly reduced in br.) 

(5) I § 267. SP, H, Pn svecchaya (H svecchatah) pravartate; 'T iechati 
pravartitum, Others failing. 

(6) I vs 82 ab. SP, N, H, Pn tat karma yan nirmalam (T yat kausalam); 
SP, N, H, Pn sa matiman (T sa ca pumdan) yah sadbhir abhyarcyate. The 
verse occurs also in Pa. The first phrase seems not to be found in Sy; 
as to Ar, Wolff has ‘‘ die beste Unternehmung die, welche das erfreulichste 
Ende nimmt,” which might conceivably be yat ka@usalam, but might also 
be a slight misunderstanding of yan nirmalam. 'The Pa versions of the 
second phrase hardly help us to decide, as they are confused; but JCap 
has bona vero fama in artificiis permanet iustorum; Derenbourg justly 
observes that “in artificiis” is obscure in meaning; does it somehow or 
other represent confusedly matimdn? . 

(7) I vs 92a. SP, N, H, Pn Gradhyamano urpatih prayatnaid; T ara° 
bahubhth prakarair. 

(8) I vs 103ed. SP, N, Pn nastam krtam akrtajie nastam daksinyam 
agunajne (Pn, SP vy. 1. anabhijne). T nasto guno ’gunajne na° da akrtajie. 

(9) 1 § 828. SP, H, Pn, and T are all verbally very close to each other. 
The word vaimadhurah of the original (SP, H, Pn) is corrupted in T. The 
corruption is somehow connected with the fact that in Pn it is preceded 
by the word d@da@u. For these two words T (ed.) has simply ddau madhurah, 
omitting vdi-; vy. ll. of T mss. are dddvdtmadhurah, ddav adtmaharah. 

(10) I vs 125d. SP, N, Hp sa krechre ‘pi na sidati; SP« sa krechresv ava- 
sidati; Hm krechrenapi na si?; Pn na sa krechresu si°.—T saphalas tasya 
buddhayah.—Pa gives no help. 


Agreements of Ur-SP and Pn, against T 169 


(11) I vs 171 ce. SP, Pn prabadhitadir (SP ed. viba®, « praba°); 'T pipdsitair. 

(12) I vs 173 b. See above, p. 88. The SP, N, H, Pn version forms a 
better parallel for pada a. 

(13) If § 62. SP, Pn pratydyito, probably supported by Pa, Br; H dap- 
yayito; 'l mss. pratyarthito. See p. 93 f. 

(14) IT vs 86. SP, N, Pn vdsam, T sthanam, in a; SP, N, Pn bhagnamanam, 
T mdnahinam, in b. 

(15) Il vs 54ed. Pn samcintitam tv Gusadham dturam hi kim naémamatrena 
karoty arogam. So Ur-SP (with various vv. ll.) except na for kim, and for 
dturam hi, N, H adturanam, SP aturdiigo, SP« °gam.—T ulldghayaty dturam 
dusadham hi kim. nama® bhavaty arogah. 

(16) Il vs 55. SP, N, H,. Pn adhyavasayabhiroh, T avyava®, in a. SP, N, 
H, Pn artham, 'T andhyam, in d. See p. 105. 

(17) Il vs 61. SP, N, H, Pn sahasde ca parthmam (nam) in b; pramadeva 
hi vrddhapatum in ce. 'T padurusavihinam (so with «), and vrddham iva patin 
pramada. 

(18) II vs 64¢. SP, N, Pn valmikasriigasadrsam ca sada (SP, N maha-) 
nagendram. T sikharan for °sadrsam (‘T is intrinsically inferior), 

(19) IT vs 69. Found only in SP, N, H, Pn. 

(20) II § 207. SP and Pn begin the deer’s story in the same way; T has 
a long unoriginal insertion. See Crit. App. 

(21) II vs 91. Found only in SP, N, H, Pn. 

(22) Ill ys 74b. SP, N, Pn rajah pasyaty asamskrta; T ra° pasyati 
caksusa (a lectio facilior). 

(23) III vs 81 b. SP, N, Pn kalapekst hrdayanthitam (N °te); 'T kalakanksi 
pilitanayano. Cf. Ks (following T), kalakanksind. 

(24) IIT vs 90. T transposes padas a and b from the order in which 
they are found in SP, N, Pn. | 

Agreements of Ur-SP and Pa.—(1) 1 § 3. SP, H daksindpathe, supported 
by Ar Dstb’ (lacuna in Sy); T, Spl, Ks daksindtye janapade; Pn °tyesu 
“padesu; So nagare kvactt. 

(2) I § 7, first clause. SP tatralabhamanasya na kimeid astt. H similarly. 
Ar (lacuna in Sy) Denn wenn er nicht erwirbt und kein Vermégen hat, 
findet er keinen Lebensunterhalt. This clause is obviously required by 
the logical development of the theme. It is nevertheless omitted in T, 
evidently by accident, and also in Pn, which here follows T. Spl and Br 
omit the entire section, so that nothing can be argued from their silence. 

(3) I vs 67a. SP, N, H visadigdhasya bhaktasya (with vv. ll.); T, Pn 
kantakasya ca (tu) bhagnasya. Pa supports SP, N, H: Sy Ein angefressener 
Zahn (= pada a) und eine faule Speise; Ar similarly. 

(4) I vs 96a. SP, N vaidyavidvajjanamatya; 'T vaidyasamvatsardmatya. 
Not in Sy; but Ar proves that the original was “scholars” and not 
“astrologers” (OSp los tedlogos de la ley). OSp also reproduces very 
well the other two members of the compound: cualquier de los vasallos 
al sefior, o de los fisicos al enfermo. 

(5) I vs 118. A verse in SP, N; prose in T, Pn; equivalents in So, Pa; 
and a different verse of similar meaning in Spl. There are two indications 


170 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


that Pa’s original probably agreed with SP, N. First, Sy begins “ Und es 
heiBt ja” (Ar similarly), which is a favorite way of introducing what 
was originally a verse. Secondly, the “ Kadaver” of Pa (see Crit. App.) 
points to pitrvana-(vihamgair, or the like) of pada b of SP, N, no equi- 
valent of which is found in the other Skt. versions. 

(6) I § 459. Only in SP, H, and Pa is it stated that Karataka and Da- 
manaka went to visit the lion at this point. But it seems that they must 
represent the original, and that the other versions must have carelessly 
omitted the statement, since the two jackals are present later on at the 
battle between the lion and the bull, in all versions. 

(7) I vs 11. A verse in SP, N, H; prose, and briefer, in T; omitted in 
Jn and Br. The version of Sy seems to support SP, N, and H; see my 
Crit. App. 

(8) II § 233. See above, p. 87f. 

(9) IIL §§ 78 and 79. In SP, H, and Pa the elephant-king addresses the 
moon with apologies and promises (in language that is unusually close). 
This is what we naturally expect; it is what the elephant had come for. 
In T (followed by Pn), altho the elephant first makes obeisance to the 
moon, or, in Pn, apologizes to it, nevertheless his speech is addrest to 
the hare, not to the moon. In Spl, Br no speech is mentioned. 

(10) III § 102 end. After the tricky cat says he cannot hear well be- 
cause of age and deafness, SP and Pa say that the hare and the partridge 
drew nearer. SP tatas tau nikatibhiiya kathayatah; Sy Und so_ niiherten 
sie sich noch um ein Kleines und erzihlten ihren Rechtshandel mit lauter 
Stimme. Similarly Ar. Others nothing. Cf. next. 

(11) [11 § 103. Just after preceding. SP« tatas tatsanuuidhanartham vis- 
vasam upapddayata dadhikarnena dharmasastratn pathitam. Sy Er aber 
sprach zu ihnen, damit sie Zutrauen zu thm fapten und herantraten.—The 
italicized words are represented nowhere else, but seem to be original. 

(12) III vs 58.¢. SP dagdham davanalendpi (and so N intends, corruptly). 
T, Jn vaca duruktam bibhatsam. Probably represented in Pa: Sy Uber- 
handnehmendes Feuer kann mit Wasser niedergeschlagen werden, [then 
expansion,] aber Verbitterung [JCap ignis vero inimicicie] liBt sich mit 
nichts ausléschen noch beruhigen. T and Pn have no mention of fire. 

(13) III vs 92. T (6; omitted in «) puts padaa of SP, N last. Ar begins 
with what is padaa of SP and N, but padad of T. But since Pa fre- 
quently transposes, this can hardly be regarded as conclusive proof of 
the originality of SP, N. 

(14) IIT vs 105ed. SP, N buddhir buddhimatotsrsta hanyadd (SP hanti) 
rastram (so SPa, N; SP ed. rajyam) sarajakam. 'T prajiena tu matih ksipta 
hanyad garbhagatén api. Pa supports SP, N: Sy Ein Kluger aber ver- 
nichtet durch seine Klugheit einen Kénig und sein Land. 

(15) IV §8. SP sahajacadpalad; Sy Bei seiner Niirrischheit. Nothing of 
this sort in T. 

(16) IV § 42, end. The ape says to himself, in SP kastam, nasto ’smi; 
vrddhatve "py ajitendriyatvaphalam anubhavami. kim ca. Sy is fragmentary ; 
Ar Alas, in spite of my many years greediness has cast me into an abyss 


Agreements of Ur-SP and Pa 171 


of misfortunes. He was right who said.—T has no speech. So has a speech 
to a different effect: hantaitadartham dnitah papendham thamunda. 

(17) IV vs 14. Found (immediately after the preceding) only in SP, N, 
and Pa (Ar). 

(18) IV § 45. The ape explains his allegation that his heart is on the 
tree by saying, in SP: vénarahrdayam sada tarusu tisthatiti prasiddham. 
Sy So ist es die Gewohnheit von uns Affen, da8 wir beim Ausgehen unser 
Herz nicht mitnehmen. Ar similarly, with addition of reasons for the 
alleged custom, which vary in the different versions and are evidently 
secondary. Nothing like this in T. 

(19) V § 16 end. The brahman, dreaming of his she-goats, says “ they 
will bear young at the age of six months;” then, in SP, tasya@s ca@patyani 
tathaiva prastiyante. Sy Und ebenso ihre weiblichen Nachkommen. Not in 
the others. 

Agreements of Ur-SP with So and Ks.—I believe that these versions 
preserve the original, against variations in T and Jn, in several places 
in the story of the Ass in the Panther’s Skin (III. 1), especially in II 
§§ 32 and 33, on which see my Crit. App. (This entire story is omitted in 
Pa.) In these two sections SP, H, and So, also Ks to some extent, agree 
very closely, while T and Jn are wholly different, and moreover do not 
agree even with each other. While both Ur-SP and Br abbreviate, they 
usually do so independently of each other, and here they coincide to such 
an extent that it is hard to think it an accident. Moreover, in § 33 they 
are actually longer than T’s version—which of course is usually fuller 
than they. 

Agreements of Pa and Jn.—1 § 95 end. Jn tty avadhdrya (Spl evan 
sampradharya) sthandntaran gatva damanakamargam (Spl damanakam) ava- 
lokayann ekaki tasthau (Pn °ky evatasthe). Ar Nachdem der Liwe unabliissig 
hieriiber nachgedacht, duldete es ihn nicht liinger an seinem Platze und 
er machte sich auf den Weg. Und ab und zu setzte er sich nieder und 
schaute den Weg entlang.—The whole passage of which this forms a part 
is found only in T, Jn, and Pa, so that the other versions, except T, could 
show nothing on this. Tl has no such statement as that quoted, unless 
possibly part of it is included, confusedly, in the last part of the lion’s 
soliloquy, just preceding. But at least T has no phrase corresponding in 
any way to damanakamargam avalokayann (Ar schaute den Weg entlang). 

(2) 1 § 147. The weaver has waked up and spoken to his wife (as he 
supposes, but really the barber’s wife who has taken her place). She 
makes no reply. Then—Pn so ’pi bhiiyas tam tad evaha. Spl practically 
the same. Sy Nachdem er sie oftmals gerufen hatte. Nothing in the others 
(es wr poll). 

(3) I vs 97 b. Spl drohacyutandm (rather than T ekdrpandnam) seems 
to be supported by Ar (KF with love remote from deceit); Sy omits the 
word. The vs occurs only in T, Spl, Pa. T’ seems to me inferior to Spl 
in d also; see p. 176 below. 

(4) I § 198. Beginning of the story of Heron and Crab. Spl and Sy are 
very close to each other and seem to represent the original. Spl ast 


172 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


kasminscit pradese nindjalacarasandtham sarah. tatra ca kriasrayo baka 
eko vrddhabhavam updgato matsyan vyapddayitum asamarthah—. Sy Es war 
einmal ein Fischreiher, der wohnte bei einem Wasser, in dem sich {Réhricht 
und] viele Fische befanden. Als er ins Alter kam, konnte er nicht mehr 
viele Fische fangen und wurde schwach.—The other versions are all 
more or less fragmentary. ‘T’ only asti kascid bako vrddhabhavat sukho- 
payam vrttim akaniksamanah. SP only asti kascid vrddhabakah. Pn locates 
the heron sarastirdikadese, else much like 'T. So locates the heron mat- 
syadhye sarasi (supporting Spl and Sy with matsydadhye, which no other 
version has). In H the lake is mentioned, as in Spl, Pn, So, Pa; and also 
the heron is sdmarthyahina. | 

(5) I vs 83. Found only in T, Pn, Pa; the second half is radically 
different in T and Pn; Pa’s version seems to be a garbled equivalent of 
Pn, and is in any case closer to it than to T. See Crit. App. 

(6) I vs 129. Again Pa seems to support Pn against T; see below p. 176. 

(7) I vs 1389. Found in T and Pa, and in Pn (pada a in one verse, 
padas bed in another just before it). While Pn is secondary in separating 
the padas, and 'I’s pada a is better represented in Pa than Pn’s, neverthe- 
less in padas b and e Pa seems to support Pn against T. Namely, in b 
T has khalanam, Pn mandanam, Sy der Tor; in ec, T caksuhsamskarajam, 
Pn caksuhprabodhanam, Sy das Licht, mittels dessen sonst jedermann sieht. 

(8) I § 506 end. Dustabuddhi suggests dividing part of the find of 
money and hiding the rest; and he continues in Spl: bhiyo "pi prayojane 
sanujate tanmdatran sametyasmat sthanan nesyavah. So Pa (Ar; lacuna in Sy) 
And when we need ready cash, we will go together and take what we 
need. This is all omitted in SP and Br; and in T, which Pn follows, we 
find a wholly different motivation, which seems to me clearly secondary: 
yatkaranam, punyaparitksa hrasavrddhibhyam (so ed. em. with Pn, mss. 
°dhita) bhavisyaty ekarthata ca janasprhaniya. 

(9) I vs 175. Occurs in Skt. only in Pn; a reflex of the last pada 
seems clearly found in Pa, see Crit. App. 

(10) II § 18. The doves are to fly giritaruvisamabhibhagdnam upari, 
according to Pn. No other Skt. version has the like. Pa’s versions are 
confused among themselves but seem clearly to point to an original some- 
thing like Pn. Sy has, according to Schulthess, “in die Pflanzungen,” 
but Bickell “in den Wald.” JCap, which seems to be the most 
original Ar version here, has per montes et colles et arbores (! very 
close to Pn!); OSp “by the place of the many trees and the inhabited 
region ;”’ Cheikho “over the fields, the gardens, and the inhabited re- 
gions.” The “inhabited regions” of some Ar versions seem to be due 
to an anticipation of § 21, later on, where the doves finally go to the 
city to visit the mouse. Note that in Ar, owing to confusion in the 
order of the sections, this § 21 follows immediately after § 18. 

(11) Il § 59. This section (see my Crit. App.) has no trace in any 
versions but T, Jn, and Pa; both T and Jn are fragmentary, having 
preserved different parts of the original, as represented perfectly by Pa 
alone. The larger part of the section oceurs in Jn but not in T. 


Agreements of Pa and Jn 173 


(12) If § 65. In the speech of the crow to the mouse, the words of 
Pn yad durgdn na nirgacchast are omitted in 'T, but found in Pa (Sy 
und kommst nicht zu deinem Loche heraus, Ar What keeps you at the 
door of your hole and what hinders you from coming out to me?). The 
other versions omit the entire section. 

(13) II vs 383 ab. T, Pn tyajanti mitrani dhanena hinam (VT dhandair 
vihinam) putras ca dards ca sahodaras (T suhrjjands) ca. Pa supports Pn 
in b (Sy seine Verwandten, Ar his relatives). Moreover 'T’s version is 
improbable a priori, since suhyjjands is a synonym of mitrami (pada a) 
and therefore pleonastic. 

(14) I1 § 158 end. The mouse hopes to get back his money,—Spl yena 
bhiiyo ‘pt me vittaprabhdvenddhipatyam pirvavad bhavati. Sy und kommt 
mir ein Teil der alten Kraft wieder und wenden sich mir dann auch 
meine Freunde wieder zu. Ar similarly. T, Pn have nothing like this 
sentence; the other Skt. versions omit the entire §. 

(15) IL § 229. See above, p. 158. 

(16) II § 237. After lamenting the capture of the tortoise for some 
time, at last the mouse says to his other friends, (Spl) aho kim vrtha- 
pralapitena (&e., suggests the need of doing something). In Pa this is 
apparently represented by Sy: So richtig du auch gesprochen hast, so 
haben wir doch von der Traurigkeit keinen Nutzen (Ar likewise). It is 
found in no other version. In Pa it is put into the mouths of the deer 
and crow, a rationalizing change, since it was (in all versions) the mouse 
whose lamentation was quoted; it therefore seemed to the Pa redactor 
more natural that the others should question the value of lamenting. 

(17) Ill § 46. As a result of the twelve-year drought mentioned in 
the preceding section, Jn say: taya (Pndyayd) tadagahradapalvalasaransi 
sosam updgatant (Pn upa®). Sy und Saat, Gras und Kraut waren spiirlich, 
sogar die Fliisse und Quellen waren versiegt. Ar likewise. Not stated in 
other versions. It seems that a definite statement is at least desirable, 
if not necessary, since the point of the story depends on the fact that 
the elephants could find no water because the ponds were all dry. Of 
course, this is implied in all the versions. 

(18) Ill § 134. The wise crow-minister, in prescribing the feigned 
maltreatment which he wishes to be inflicted upon him, instructs his 
master in Jn and Pa to pretend to be angry at him: Jn atinisthurava- 
canary nirbhartsya (Spl bhartsaya); Sy Mein Herr ergrimmt iiber mich 
angesichts des Gefolges und duBert sich schlimm iiber mich. Ar like- 
wise. The equivalent of these words occurs nowhere else. 

(19) IIT § 152. Pn sapati; 'l mss. ’bhipatati (or ’tipatati), emended by 
Hertel to Pn’s reading. Sy den verflucht sein Gliick. Ar versions seem 
not to contain the word “curse,” but doubtless Sy ee by Pn) 
contains the original Pahlavi version. 

(20) III § 162 end. The old man, awakened by his wife’s sudden em- 
brace, catches sight of the thief, and—in Spl—acintayat, niinam esa 
caurasya Sankaya mam samalingate. Similarly Pn, Pa (Sy wuBte er, daB sie 
ihn aus Furcht vor diesem umarmt hatte). Natural as this seems, and 


174 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


close to each other as Jn and Pa are in language, I do not feel con- 
fident that both have not expanded the text secondarily. For T, SP, and 
So are also very close to each other at this point, and none of them 
have a trace of this, tho of course the idea is clearly implied in them. 

Agreements of Pa and So (Ks).—(1) I § 69. The lion, being askt 
by Damanaka why he has stopt after setting out for water, soliloquizes 
in So: laksito ’smy amund tat kim bhaktasyasya niguhyate. In Sy he says: 
Weil nun Dmng diese Stimme gehért hat, will ich ihm das Geheimnis 
offenbaren und ihn dabei auf seinen Verstand und auf seine Freundschaft 
priifen.—The first clause of Sy seems to correspond to So’s laksito &e., 
which has no correspondent in the other versions; and “ Freundschaft” 
seems to point to So’s bhaktasya, which is also not found elsewhere, 
rather than to yogyo of 'T, Jn (with which cf. Sy Verstand ?). 

(2) I § 89. In proposing to go and investigate the noise, Damanaka 
asks the lion’s permission in So (manyase yadi) and Pa (Ar Der K6nig 
geruhe nun, mich nach dieser Stimme auszuschicken; lacuna in Sy), 
whereas in the others he-.simply states his intention of going. 

(3) I § 811. As Damanaka leaves the lion to visit the bull, the text 
of So, Ks and Pa and perhaps SP (? so ed., but not SPa nor H) ex- 
presses variously the idea which I have exprest in the reconstruction by 
sinham vikrtahrdayam vidhaya. Tho the other versions have nothing of 
the sort, it seems at least possible that the Pa and Br versions may 
have inherited such a phrase from the original. Even this cannot be 
considered certain, however, as it might be a secondary summary of the 
preceding passage. And we cannot guess with confidence at the language, 
even supposing that the thot was exprest in the original. Hence I en- 
close the words not only in parentheses but between daggers. 

Agreements of Jn and So (Ks).—(1) I § 112. This section, stating 
that Satnjivaka saluted the lion on coming into his presence, is found 
only in Spl, Pn, So, and Ks. It seems plausible and is probably original. 

(2) I § 255. In Jn and So the lion, on seeing his image in the well, 
roars into the well, and takes the echo for the answering roar of the 
other lion. This incident certainly sounds good, and is very likely 
original; it seems not very probable that two versions would think of 
this sort of a variation independently. 

(3) IIL § 47. Both Jn versions with So and Ks name the elephant- 
king Caturdanta, which is evidently original. T has the synonym Caturda- 
Sana; the other versions give no name. 

(4) Ill § 244. This is one of the clearest cases in which the original 
can be reconstructed with virtual certainty on the basis of two versions 
alone—in this case, Pn and So; and also one of the clearest cases of 
‘l’s secondariness. Hertel discusses the passage T'antr. Einl. p. 59, but 

wholly misunderstands it, largely owing to failure to note the evidence 
' of Somadeva; partly also owing to mistakes in identifying various 
Pahlavi passages with passages of the Sanskrit versions. His parallel 
passages op. cit. p. 60 ff. are incorrect. What is called “vs 62” of Sy, 
along with the immediately following “ A 215a and b,” have nothing to 


Agreements of Jn and So (Ks) 175 


do with the passage we are now considering, but belong with 'T A 249, 
our § 262, which occurs in exactly the same position as these T’ pas- 
sages. Therefore, the question so earnestly discust by Hertel, as to 
whether the order of T or of Pa is distorted, is liquidated ; neither one 
has distorted order.—As to the passage we are now discussing: it forms 
a unit with the immediately following vs 76 and § 245. No trace of this 
entire passage is found in SP (or its relatives) or Pa; so we must rely 
on T, Jn and Br. The passage occurs after the owl-king, in spite of the 
remonstrance of his wisest minister, has started for his home, taking 
with him as a protegé the wily crow, Cira(th)jivin. On the way the crow 
reflects to himself: 


§ 244: Pn niyamanas cantarlinam avahasya sthirajivi vyacintayat. 
So ity uktas cirajivi sa raktaksena vyacintayat. 
(Note even the identical verb of thinking in Pn and So.) 
Vs 76: vadhyatam iti yenoktam svamino hitavadina 
sa evaiko ’tra mantribhyo nitisastrarthatattvavit. 

Thus T and Pn (except Pn hanyatam in a, sarvesarn for mantri- 
bhyo inc). Spl has prose equivalent in meaning, and Ks seems 
also to have a trace of the vs (see Crit. App.). In So, however, 
the correspondence is unmistakable: nitijfiasya na caitasya 
rajianena krtarn vacah, sesa mutrkha ime sarve. 

§ 245: T (8 only) yady apy ete srnuyuh, tadasa me saphala na syad iti. 
Pn tad yadi tasya vacanam akarisyann ete, tato na svalpo ‘py 
anartho *bhavisyad etesam. 
So tat karyarh siddham eva me (ef. also under prec. vs, which is 
partially fused with this in So). 


Note that T lacks § 244 entirely! An obvious lacuna (recognized as 
such by Hertel in his Translation, tho in the Introduction to it, l.¢., 
he does not seem clear in his own mind about it), When Hertel (1. ¢. 
note 2) speaks of Purnabhadra’s version as a “ konjekturelle Besserung ”, 
he forgets Somadeva! Is So’s version also a “ konjekturelle Besserung” ? 
—The reason why Ta has omitted § 245 (found in Tf and unquestionably 
in the Ur-T) evidently is that T« interprets vs 76 as a comment of the 
author, not a reflection of the crow; and since § 245 is inconsistent with 
this interpretation, drops it out. The occurrence of both passages in Pn 
and So, as well as antecedent plausibility (which is all in favor of the 
verse being a reflection of the crow; it is not at all the sort of verse 
which the author of the Paficatantra uses, or would naturally use, in 
propria persona; and So also puts it in the mouth of the crow), make 
the interpretation here suggested seem to me the only possible one. 


Other unoriginal features of Tantrakhyayika.—To complete the case 
against the Tantrakhyayika as “the original Paficatantra”, I append 
here a few other examples of passages in which it appears to me to have 
departed from the original. These passages are put here because they do 
not seem to belong definitely with any of the preceding groups. 


176 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


(1) I $160. T represents the barber as returning from the king’s pa- 
lace (rajakulat) in order to get his razors so as to go and ply his trade 
in the king’s palace (rajakule, § 161)! Jn follow T in § 160, and change 
§ 161 so as to remove this absurdity. It seems clear that T cannot possibly 
be right in both places. The Pa version of § 161 seems to show that 
T’s statement of the barber’s destination in that place is original (in 
spite of Jn’s variant). We must therefore reject T’s ra@jakulat in § 160, 
which is supported by no version except Jn (interdependent with T). In 
§ 160 H and Pa have no mention of the place whence the barber comes. 
SP has anyatah, and we may reasonably guess that this is the original. 
SP could have had no reason for changing the place whence the barber 
was coming in § 160, for it has no mention of his destination in § 161. 

(2) T §§ 195, 227, 229ff., and vs 60. In the story of the Crows and 
Serpent, T’ makes the catch-verse inconsistent with the prose story; in 
the former it is the female crow who steals the ornament, in the latter 
the male crow. Apparently in the original it was the female crow. Some 
of the other versions are .also confused, in different ways. See notes in 
my Crit. App. on §§ 195 and 227. 

(3) I § 252. In T the hare’s story of how he had been stopt by another 
lion is abbreviated to the single word sizhena (se., vidhrto ’smt). ‘Tho the 
other versions are not very close to each other, they all agree in having 
the hare make a longer story of it, and it seems to me a priori almost 
certain that the original cannot have been so brief as in T. 

(4) I § 253. T first has an insertion found in no other version, in which 
the lion reflects that he will not eat the hare until he has made him 
show him the rival lion. In the same section T also omits the hare’s 
reply to the lion’s speech (see above, p. 162). 

(5) I vs 97d. This vs is found only in T, Spl, and Pa. In pada b Pa 
supports a variant of Spl against T (see above, p. 171). In pada d (Spl 
tasmad ambupater ivavanipateh seva sadasankini), 'T reads ambunidher for 
ambupater, spoiling the word-play (ambu-pati: avani-pati) on the words 
for “sea” and “king”. It seems clear that Spl is original. 

(6) I vs 129a. The vs occurs only in T, Pn, and Pa. Pn reads antar- 
gudhabhujamgamam grham iva vyalakulam va vanam. 'V varies with antar- 
lina® and °%vantahsthograsinham vanam. Pn has better meter; since in 
sardilavikridita there should be a cesura where Pn has it, after iva. 
Moreover it seems that Pn’s vydla is represented in Pa rather than T’s 
sinha; Sy has Panther, Ar apparently “wild beast”, tho OSp has leon, 
but Derenbourg on JCap ad loc. says this is a mistranslation.—In pada 
e Pa seems to support Pn against T, tho this is not certain; see Crit. App. 

(7) I $$ 547. Dharmabuddhi’s action at the trial. See above, p. 97. 

(8) Il § 63. Found only in T, Pn, and Pa. Pn is fragmentary, and T is 
obviously confused; only in Pa do we find consistent sense. See Crit. App. 
‘This is a case in which we can only patch up a makeshift version based on 
Pa, using such fragments of text as are confusedly preserved in 'T and Pn. 

(9) Il vs 25d. SP« and N ekdrimitratam (“state of having the same 
friends and enemies;” SP ed. evatimi?); T, Pn ekanta®, Spl krtrima®. That 


* 6 . ao) Bs! = mr 
Other unoriginal features of Tautrakhyayika Lei 


ekarv® is right seems indicated by T vs 40 (an unoriginal verse), where 
we find this word in a like connexion. 

(10) Il $§ 121, 122, vs 29, § 123. The reflections of the jackal upon 
finding the dead hunter, deer, and boar are represented in T by the 
verse alone (our vs 29). T’ has certainly lost the rest of the jackal’s utter- 
ance, including the last part of § 121 and all of §§ 122 and 123. The 
originality of at least most of this passage is shown by Jn, SP (especially 
SP), H, and Pa, and partly also by Br. See Crit. App. 

(11) III vs 62. Occurs only in T, Spl, and Pa. In ed the meter of T 
is inconsistent with the meter of ab; in Spl it is consistent. Pa gives no 
evidence. 

(12) LI § 290. After this section T represents the serpent as reciting 
to the frog-king its vs 110, with allusion to the story of the “ Butter-blind 
Brahman.” This spoils the story, since it would have given away the 
whole trick to the frog-king; and in particular it is inconsistent with 
the next following verse in T, our vs 96, T vs 111, which shows con- 
clusively that the serpent had no intention at this time of hinting at 
his true plans, but on the contrary was keeping up the deception. No 
other version is guilty of such a lapse. The verse ‘T 110 is found else- 
where only in Pn; but Pn, tho he follows T here, saw the absurdity of 
the verse as it stands in 'T, and emended the text. He has this vs (and 
the story to which it alludes, which TT’ does not have) recited by the 
serpent to another serpent, who (out of the frog-king’s hearing) asks 
him why he lets the frogs ride him. All this is evidently an invention of 
Pn, intended to smooth over the inconsistency in the text as found in T. 

(13) IV § 32ff. T has omitted parts of the original, and changed other 
parts; see p. 103 f. above. 

(14) IV § 36. T has borrowed a sentence from IV § 65; see p. 102f. 

(15) LV §§ 74 and 75. T’ is confused and has omitted part of the ori- 
ginal account of the second conversation between the jackal and the 
ass, by which the jackal persuades the ass to go back again to the lion. 
See Crit. App. 

(16) IV § 78. 'T’s version of the jackal’s reflections, after the lion has 
left him in charge of the dead ass and gone to bathe, is certainly secon- 
dary, and may fairly be called nonsensical. See Crit. App. 

Insertions in Tantrakhyayika.—Finally I append here a group of 
passages in which it appears to me that I’ has added to the original 
text. Some such cases have been noted above (stories added, p. 74ff.; 
other additions, e. g. p. 83, p. 84). The passages here collected are all 
cases which (so far as | am aware) have not previously been identified 
as insertions (with one or two exceptions which will be noted); in fact, 
some of them Hertel specifically alleges to be parts of the original. | 
do not include here, as a rule, inserted verses. I regard as probable in- 
sertions all verses of T’ not included in my reconstruction. The list can 
easily be deduced by a process of elimination (all those not found in 
my Conspectus of Text-Units, p. 192 ff). 


Edgerton, Paneatantra. IL. 12 


178 Chapter VIL: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


(1) KM §13. In T the king promises a reward to anyone who shall 
first report to him the completion of his sons’ education. No such fea- 
ture is found elsewhere. 

(2) I § 85. The expression of the jackal’s hopes of finding food in the 
drum is very awkwardly duplicated in T. 

(3) I$ 120. T A 34, line 3. In T the lion puts Sarnjivaka in charge of 
certain official functions, the exact meaning of which is not clear (see 
Hertel’s Translation, p. 17). Hertel (J. c. note 1) argues that the passage 
is original, on the ground that it is represented in the Hitopadesa. The 
passage in H to which he refers is a long expansion in which a brother 
of the lion appears and advises the lion to put 8. in charge of the com- 
missary, which Karataka and Damanaka are wasting. There is abso- 
lutely no verbal correspondence between this passage and that of 'T. It 
seems to me clear that the passage of H is an invention out of whole 
cloth. No one can doubt that the most of it is. For instance, the lion’s 
brother is unknown elsewhere. And it is very unlikely that H should 
have included in this long invented passage a fragmentary bit of the 
original, Such is not the custom of H in these unoriginal insertions, of 
which it contains many. In view of the total lack of support for the 
passage in all other texts there is little doubt in my mind that T’s sen- 
tence is unoriginal. 

(4) I § 142 (cf. § 145). T is clearly secondary in haying the weaver 
come home and fall asleep twice and wake up again before binding his 
wife to the pillar. According to T, the weaver comes home and imme- 
diately falls asleep; wakes up, scolds his wife, whereupon she tries to 
reply, but he falls asleep again, and only after waking up once more 
does he bind her to the pillar. These two cases of falling asleep are mere 
blundering anticipations of § 145. It is clear from the sense (even without 
the perfect agreement of all the other versions) that he beats (and, ac- 
cording to Jn with I’, scolds) his wife before he goes to sleep at all. The 
beating is omitted altogether in T, whose account is bizarre and secondary. 

(5) After I vs 71 T inserts its A 51, of which a remote imitation seems 
to be found in Pn p. 59, 1.12. No other version has the like; it is re- 
petitious and poor in meaning, and doubtless unoriginal. 

(6) After I vs 105 'T inserts its A 69, probably a corruption of a stanza 
(Hertel, note ad loc.); not represented elsewhere. 

(7) After I vs 118 (prose in 'T), T has an insertion (A 76, 1. 3, tasmdat 
purvam &c.), with ays (119), found nowhere else, except that Pn has an 
equivalent of the prose sentence. 

(3) I § 537. All versions agree in having the erab ask the heron simply 
“Why are you sad?” or words to that effect. In T we find: ... tam 
tha: mama, kim adydpy aharo nanusthiyata iti. bakah (8 asav aha): adhr- 
teparitasya me kuta aharabhilasa iti. yato ’sdv dha: kimlaksanasamut- 
thadhrtih.— The crab’s first question is practically identical with the 
question addrest by another crab to another heron in the story of the 
Heron and Crab (our I. 5), and is evidently borrowed by T from that 
place, where it was much more appropriate than it is here. 


Insertions in Tantrakhyayika 179 


(9) I § 545 end. The sentence in T which expresses Dustabuddhi’s per- 
turbation at seeing the bonfire lighted has no support in the other yer- 
sions. While it makes good enuf sense, it seems to me hardly likely that 
all the other versions would have omitted it if it had been in the original 
(it is not the sort of feature which would be apt to fall out repeatedly 
by mere accident, and it is hard to see why anyone should have omitted 
it deliberately). I therefore think that it was probably not. original.— 
The point is that otherwise it would be necessary to suppose that it 
was left out at least three different times, and with no substitute in place 
of it. 

(10) After I vs 162, T has an inserted passage (A 114, vss 172, 173, 
A 115) which is elsewhere found only in Pn, and which interrupts the 
thread of the discourse, which is resumed at the point where it was 
broken off by this insertion. This seems to me to confirm the unanimity 
of the other versions in indicating the secondariness of the passage. 
See Crit. App. 

(11) II § 11. T alone has a speech of the hunter, reflecting on the 
large number of birds he has caught. 

(12) If § 13. T puts the plan for the escape of the doves into the 
mouth of a jaratkapota, not of the dove-king as in all other versions. 

(13) After If § 17, T has a duplication of § 15 and vs 2, repeating 
the reflections of the hunter. It is most obviously repetitious and se- 
condary. I believe this is admitted by Hertel somewhere, tho I have 
lost the reference. 

(14) IL § 38. T has a much fuller, and probably expanded, version 
of the dove-king’s speech to the mouse. 

(15) Il § 66 is only found in T and Pa. Both contain the comparison 
of grain given to birds by hunters (as a “ gift” not intended to benefit 
the receiver). T’ alone adds the comparison of the net given to the 
fishes. But this is a very lame comparison; it is the bait, not the net, 
that should be mentioned if the comparison were to hold good; the net 
cannot be regarded asa “present” to the fishes in any sense, and can- 
not be thot of as an attraction for them. It seems clear that this is a 
stupid and secondary insertion in T. 

(16) After Il § 82 occurs in T a fragment (vss 39—42) of narrative 
and description cast in poetic form, which partly duplicates the sur- 
rounding prose. It looks as if this might have been borrowed from 
some poetic version, now lost (as suggested first by Thomas). Hertel 
(WZKM. 25.19) admits the probability of the borrowing. 

(17) Il § 118. T, followed by Pn, inserts a reflection by the hunter 
on seeing the boar (including a verse). No other version has the like. 

(18) If § 183. At the end of this 'T’ inserts a prose passage and vs, 
found nowhere else, in which the demand for huskt sesame in exchange 
for huskt is emphasized. See above, p. 106, bottom. 

(19) Il § 152. T is repetitious in its version of the remarks of the 
mouse’s followers; and its account of their desertion of him is certainly 


much longer than the others, and in my opinion contains an insertion. 
12% 


180 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued 


(20) On IT vss 70—72 and § 174, which are all that is original of a 
long passage in 'T’, see above, p. 161. 

(21) After Il § 197 T’ has an insertion, including several vss, repre- 
senting reflections of the deer after he has been caught. No other ver- 
sion has anything of the sort. 

(22) Before II § 207, at the beginning of the story of the Deer's For- 
mer Captivity, I’ has a long and bizarre insertion. 

(23 and 24) II §§ 220, 221. Insertions in both of these sections, found 
in T only; in the former a long one, with several verses. 

(25) Il] § 8. 'T inserts a long ntti passage spoken by kecid rrddhah to 
the crow-king in response to his inquiry. No other version has the like, 
and it seems improbable that it is original for the additional reason that 
the ministers of the crow-king are not introduced until later, and we must 
wonder who these kecid vrddhah were.—The last sentence of A 200 in T 
(evam uktvaikantibhitah) has no connexion with this inserted passage; it 
refers (or at least did refer in the original) to the king and his ministers, 
not to the inserted wrddhah, and it is doubtless original, since it seems 
to be represented in Pa. 


CHAPTER VIII 


THE ORIGINAL WORK AS REVEALED BY THE RECON- 
STRUCTION 


Purpose of this chapter.—In this chapter | shall first summarize 
the little evidence which I have been able to gather from the 
reconstruction as to certain mooted questions about the ori- 
ginal work: its original name and the meaning thereof, its 
date and authorship, its place of origin, its language, and its 
character as a political textbook. This will be followed by a 
tabular Conspectus of Stories found in the original, and finally 
by a Conspectus of smaller Text-Units, showing in minute de- 
tail the extent to which each section and verse of the recon- 
struction is supported by correspondences in the older extant 
versions. 

Name of the original work.—There is no doubt, I think, that 
the original name was Pancatantra (neuter; nominative °tram). 
This is the name used exclusively in the Southern Pancatantra; 
the Nepalese apparently also knew this name alone; the Hito- 
padesa used a Pancatantra; the Jain versions call themselves 
Paneakhyana(ka), but are ‘also called Pancatantra”’ (and see 
my Critical Apparatus on KM § 14; here Jn call the work 
Paneatantraka only!); the Tantrakhyayika mss. call themselves 
Tantrakhyayika or °ka, but several of the @ mss. have also 
the name Pafcatantra in one or two places. Hertel thinks they 
borrowed this name from ‘“K ”. I have already indicated that 
I do not believe in this “K” and do not believe there is any 
reason to think that the Tf mss. are contaminated from any 
other known version. Since, therefore, the name Pancatantra 
is found in all versions that give any name (none is found 
in Br and Pa), and is the only name so found, it seems to me 
quite clear that it is the original name. 

Meaning of the name.—As to its meaning, it apparently means 
“(the work) consisting of five tantras.’’ There has been con- 
siderable discussion as to what tantra means, as a title of one of 


182 Chapter VII: The original work as revealed by the reconstruction 


the five subdivisions of the Pancatantra. Hertel thinks it means 
“Klugheitsfall,” “trick” (Pane. p. 10). Others (e. g. Winternitz, 
DLZ 1910, Sp. 2700) think it means simply “ book ” or division 
of a literary work. My own opinion now inclines to agree with 
the latter. This is, however, a question on which the reconstruc- 
tion throws no light, so far as I can see, and I can adduce no 
argument on either side that has not been previously advanst. 

Date of the original work.—On this point also I have found 
no new evidence. Hertel’s previous estimate of ca. 200 B. c. for 
the original was certainly too early, as Hertel has since then 
recognized. In his book Das Paincatantra he brings the date 
down to about 300 a. pv., following Winternitz and Thomas 
(op. cit. p. 9). The chief argument for the later date seems to 
be the occurrence of the word dindara (denarius) in the original 
(in which it unquestionably occurred; see e. g. Reconstruction | 
S 501). Keith has since pointed out (JRAS. 1915, p. 505.) 
that itacism occurs in Hellenistic Greek before the Christian 
era, so that the pronunciation of the word denarius as if di- 
narius might be older than Jolly (Recht und Sitte, p. 23) sup- 
posed; and it is on Jolly’s opinion that the assumed lateness 
of dindra is based. However, it should be observed that it is 
not merely a question of itacistic pronunciation of the word, 
but of the word itself. It was originally a Roman coin, and 
only after spreading to the Greek world and thru it to the 
Farther East could it have got establisht in India. As used in 
the Paneatantra it is evidently a very familiar, even common- 
place coin. So that in spite of Keith’s Biasatit we can hardly 
suppose that a Hindu work in which this word is so used 
could be anything but post-Christian. 

I think it is at present impossible to say more about the date 
than that it was earlier than the sixth century A. p.,in which the 
Pahlavi translation was made, and later than the beginning of 
the Christian era. 

Authorship of the original work.—QOn this subject too I have 
no new evidence. There is, in fact, really no evidence at all 
as to who the author was. I think there can be little doubt 
that the name Visnusarman, applied in the Introduction to the 
wise brahman who tells the stories to the princes, is fictitious. 
And there is no hint anywhere as to the true name or station 


Authorship of the original work 183 


of the author. We may, however, be sure (with Hertel) that 
he was an orthodox Hindu; that is, not a Buddhist or a Jaina. 
I do not think that there is any reason for being confident 
that he was a member of the brahman caste, nor that he was 
a Visnuite sectarian, as Hertel believes (Paiic. p. 7). 

Home of the original work.—-On this subject also I find little 
positive evidence. Hertel thinks the work was probably composed 
in Kashmir (Tantr., Kinl. p. 23 ff.). But I think his arguments are 
wholly inconclusive, and in large part based on a false assump- 
tion, namely, that most of the Pancatantra versions other than 
the Tantrakhyayika (which is at home in Kashmir) go back to 
northwestern archetypes, if not to the Tantrakhyayika itself. 
Hertel’s arguments based on the animals found in the Paiica- 
tantra are also subjective and inconclusive. I think there is no 
reason whatever to connect the original work with Kashmir. 

But I find little reason for connecting it with any other par- 
ticular part of India, either. There are few geographical re- 
ferences which can with confidence be attributed to the original 
work. The scene of the frame-story of Book V is laid in the Gauda 
land (V § 3), that is in Bengal, according to T, SP, and Ks, 
which is a pretty good guarantee that the original read so. But 
this need mean nothing more than that the author of the original 
knew the name of this region. Of all the older and better-known 
versions of the Paicatantra, only the Hitopadesa has been con- 
nected historically with Bengal, and this fact is unfavorable to 
the assumption that the original Pancatantra was at home there. 
No evidence can be derived from the list of pilgrimage-places 
mentioned.in II] § 98—Puskara, Gangadvara (Hardwar), Pra- 
yaga (Allahabad), and Varanasi (Benares). For, in the first place, 
we cannot be sure that these places were named in the original, 
since we find them only in the Tantrakhyayika (altho the Old 
Syriac shows that at least some places of the sort were named in 
the original); and, in the second place, these are places whose 
names must have been known thruout the length and breadth of 
India, or at least in every part of it to which Brahmanical cul- 
ture had penetrated. Possibly more important is the mention of 
Mount Rsyamtika in II § 134. We cannot, indeed, be certain 
that this name occurred in the original. We find it only in the 
Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions. But other versions show 


184. Chapter VILE: The original work as revealed by the reconstruction 


that some mountain was named here. And the z subrecension of 
the Southern Paneatantra reads asyasriga (the edition of SP, 
following 2, has the inferior reading apatyakasrnga), which looks 
like a corruption of rsyagriga (or rsya®); this is a well-known 
name of a man, but no mountain of the name is known, and it 
would not be an unplausible guess that SP goes back to an arche- 
type which had ysyamika. It is, therefore, at least very likely 
that T and Jn have preserved, in Rsyamtka, the name of the 
mountain as it was found in the original work. Now, this moun- 
tain is mentioned in the Markandeya Purana and in the Brhat- 
samhita as located in the south of India. See Kirfel, Aosmo- 
graphie der Inder, p. 85; and for further evidence Pargiter, 
JRAS, 1894, p. 253; Pargiter locates it in the western part of the 
Dekkan. The manner in which the mountain is mentioned in II] 
§ 134 seems to suggest a familiarity with the place which might 
reasonably be supposed to indicate that the original author lived 
not very far from it; the comparative unfamiliarity of the name 
militates against the assumption that it might have been named 
in such a way by a person living in a remote part of India. This 
bit of evidence therefore may be taken as tending to show that 
the home of the original Pancatantra was in the south, perhaps 
the southwest, of India. But it would be rash to assume this with 
any confidence without further evidence to confirm it. Such con- 
firmation might possibly be seen in the fact that the scene of the 
whole Paneatantra (see KM I §1), as well as of the first book! (see 
I § 5), of the second book (see II § 3), and of the first emboxt 
story in Book II (see II § 91), is laid in the Dekkan, in a city 
named Mahilaropya (for which the variant Mihilaropya occurs 
repeatedly), a city which has not yet been identified and may 
be imaginary. Even this, however, hardly gives us complete 
proof that the work was composed in the south. 

Language of the original work.—It is a pleasure to be able 
to agree whole-heartedly with Hertel’s opinion on this subject. 
In my opinion there cannot be the slightest doubt that the ori- 
ginal was composed in the Sanskrit language. I base this opinion 
on the fact, which my Critical Apparatus abundantly illustrates 
(and ef. pp. 130 ff. above), that the identical Sanskrit language 

' Here the city M. is the bull’s original home; the action really takes place 
near the Jumna (§§ 16, 19). The city Mathura, on the Jumna, is named I § 9, 


. . . at 
Language of the original work 185 


of the original is clearly preserved to a very great extent in 
all the versions. This is true even of Somadeva and Ksemendra, 
to such an extent as to make me feel somewhat dubious about 
the usually accepted theory that they go back directly to a 
Prakrit original (which must in that case have been itself trans- 
lated from the Sanskrit, as far as concerns their Paneatantra 
sections); but see p. 51 above on this matter. If anyone can 
read my reconstruction and Critical Apparatus, and still have 
doubts about the original language of the Paficatantra, | shall 
be disappointed. It is hardly a matter to argue about; it is self- 
evident.—Of course, if anyone wishes to suppose that back of this 
original, here reconstructed, there may have been a still older 
version composed in some Prakrit dialect, he is at liberty to do so. 
But there is not a trace of such a thing in the text itself, so far 
as IT have been able to see: and I consider it most improbable. 


Character of the original as a political textbook.—On this point 
I can add little in principle to what I have already said in the 
first chapter of this Introduction (see p. 5), to which I beg 
the reader to turn at this point. I think Hertel is right in believ- 
ing that the author conceived the work as one that should teach 
political wisdom. I cannot agree with him, however, when he 
erects this principle into a cast-iron rule, and argues that any 
story which does not seem to us to teach political wisdom must 
be rejected as unoriginal. This seems to me a gross exaggeration. 
It argues more care and consistency than I should be willing 
to attribute to any story-teller, or to any Hindu redactor of a 
book which, after all, is a book of stories—primarily that, | 
should say, and only secondarily a political textbook. At any 
rate, whether primarily or not, it 7s a book of stories; and I 
cannot believe that the author would have so rigorously re- 
stricted himself as Hertel thinks. Furthermore, there are diffe- 
rent views possible as to what constitutes wise conduct in given 
eases. The Paneatantra, like other books of the sort, often pre- 
sents discordant views, evidently with intent; it arranges joint 
debates between characters in the stories. Thus it happens that 
at least one story occurs in it (Kvil-wit and Honest-wit, I. 13) 
which teaches, and is obviously meant to teach, the distinctly 
non-Machiavellian lesson that ‘‘ honesty is the best policy. ” (The 
point of this story was not understood by Hertel. See my paper 


186 Chapter VIII: The original work as revealed by the reconstruction 


on it, JAOS. 40, 271 ff.) It is imbedded in a long moral lecture 
read by the virtuous jackal Karataka to the tricky Damanaka, 
in which he reproves him for his villainy, assuring him that 
he will live to repent it, in spite of its apparent success. I fail 
to see how Hertel can reconcile the obvious intention of this 
long passage (including this story) with his opinion that political 
trickery is the exclusive doctrine taught in the Paneatantra. 

Accordingly I must emphatically reject this criterion which 
Hertel alleges for judging the originality of stories. It is utterly 
wrong to say that they must be suspected of being secondary 
if they have no apparent political lesson. As Winternitz says 
(DLZ. 1910, Sp. 2762), while there ‘“‘can be no doubt that the 
work was intended from the start to be a Nitisastra, that is a 
‘textbook’ of political and practical wisdom, ”’ nevertheless the 
word “textbook ’’ must be “taken ewm grano salis”.—What 
I believe to be the only safe grounds for judging the originality 
of stories have been set forth above, p. 55 ff., especially 58 ff. 

Story-contents of the original: stories included by me but ex- 
cluded or doubted by Hertel.—'lhe following table will show the 
stories which I believe the original contained, and at the same 
time the occurrences of each story in the older extant versions. 
There is practically no doubt, in my opinion, that the list in- 
cludes exactly the stories of the original, neither more nor less. 
Comparing the list with Hertel’s list (Tantr. Einl. p. 128 ff.), 
we find that my list includes all of the stories which Hertel 
then attributed to the original, but that it also includes five 
which he there labels doubtful, and three which he there de- 
clares to be certainly unoriginal. Since that time he has removed 
one story (our III. 9, Mouse-Maiden) from the doubtful to the 
certain column, and one story (V. 2, Barber who killed the 
Monks) from the unoriginal to the doubtful column (Laie. p. 17). 
His only objection to the story of the Mouse-Maiden was that he 
could see no political lesson in it, and he now recognizes that it 
has a political lesson. To my mind it is certainly original, whether 
it has a political lesson or not. The stories of my list which he still 
considers doubtful are I. 3, III. 1, 1V.1, V. 1, and V. 2. Those 
which he still considers certainly unoriginal are II. 4 and IIL. 6. 

As to I. 3, the Three self-caused Mishaps, Hertel suspects it 
of being unoriginal because: (1) It is omitted in So and Ks, (2) In 


. . . w] 
Story-contents of the original 187 


the third anecdote contained in it, virtue and not deceit triumphs 
in the end. (3) In the Tantrakhyayika form of the story he finds 
a number of literary harshnesses.—I have indicated above that 
the omission of a story in one stream of tradition seems to me 
much easier to explain than its independent insertion in exactly 
the same place in three streams (p. 58). The triumph of virtue 
is, IN My Opinion, no reason for suspecting the story. The lit- 
erary harshnesses (one of the chief of which is dealt with above, 
p. 178), in so far as they are real, pertain to Tantrakhyayika 
alone, and prove only that the Tantrakhyavika is an imperfect 
representative of the original Paneatantra, and that it is in these 
cases excelled by the other versions. 

Against III. 1, the Ass in the Panther’s Skin, Hertel urges 
the fact that it is lacking in Pahlavi and transposed in Simplicior 
(neither of which facts is of serious weight; Spl transposes many 
of the stories of Book IIL), and also that the insertion of the 
story seems to him awkward, since it postpones the answer to 
the crow-king’s inquiry as to how the enmity between the crows 
and the owls originated. This is a purely subjective opinion, 
which seems to me to have no weight. I think Hertel’s objection 
is based solely on western esthetic principles. To Hindu story- 
tellers there is nothing objectionable in the insertion of anecdotes 
illustrative of general principles involved, even when they delay 
the course of the main story. The story here concerned is very 
apposite to the situation where it occurs; it is an illustration of 
vagdosa, coming to grief thru speaking. Cf. on II. 4 below. 

IV. 1, the Ass without Heart and Ears, is markt doubtful by 
Hertel, but he nevertheless states that he considers it ‘“ probably 
original.” Apparently his only reason for questioning it is that 
the catch-verse is not included in the Nepalese verse-text. This 
is, to my mind, no reason at all. 

V. 1, Brahman builds Air-castles, is questioned by Hertel 
solely because it is lacking in Somadeva. As I have repeatedly 
said, such grounds seem to me of no weight. 

V. 2, the Barber who killed the Monks, was formerly con- 
sidered ‘ certainly unoriginal’ by Hertel, solely because it is 
lacking in Somadeva and Pahlavi. This again seems to me an 
insufficient reason for questioning a story found in T, Jn, Ks, 
SP, N, and H, that is in at least two independent streams of 


188 Chapter VIII: The original work as revealed by the reconstruction 


tradition, and in the same place in all but Jn (which have totally 
rearranged Book VY) and H (which has no Book V and includes 
the stories thereof in the earlier books). Now, in Pajie. p. 18, 
Hertel inclines to think that this story may have been original 
after all, on the ground that it is the last story of the whole 
work, and its omission might have been due to a fragmentary 
condition of the mss. used by So and Pa. 


Of the two stories in my list which Hertel still considers cer- 
tainly unoriginal, one, III. 6, Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief, 
has been discust at length above, p. 63, note 6, where I have tried 
to show the fallacy of Hertel’s reasoning. The other is LI. 4, 
Deer's Former Captivity, which is found only in T, SP, N, Pn, 
and Ks. It is, as pointed out above (p. 26, n. 21), really an in- 
cident in the frame-story of Book I]; as such it was omitted in 
at least one late version based on Purnabhadra, evidently because 
the redactor considered it unessential to the main story and did 
not recognize it as an independent story (this is Hertel’s own 
explanation, Paiic. p. 117). For this same reason it was omitted 
by Somadeva, quite in keeping with his usual custom; and this 
may be the reason for its omission in Pahlavi, which in any case 
omits several stories that were (in my opinion) certainly original. 
That the deer is saved in this anecdote ‘“‘ not by cleverness but 
by the compassion of another” is no argument to my mind, and 
need not be one even to Hertel if he will but consider the 
‘story a part of the frame, for he seems to admit (curiously, 
and inconsistently, I think) that the frame may contain incidents 
that are not exclusively “tricky” in their ‘ morals” (ZDMG. 
69. 114, where he seems to imply that the “stery’’ II. 1 need 
not have a tricky moral, since it was regarded by the author as 
part of the frame). The fact that the story is told by the deer 
before he has been freed from his bonds is no argument against 
the originality. For one thing, the mouse was freeing the deer 
while the deer was telling the story, so that it occasioned no 
delay (cf. Il § 229, where we find that the mouse has already 
cut the bonds). Secondly, compare the similar long conversation, 
with several inserted stories, between the crow-king and _ his 
ministers at the beginning of Book III; altho they were fully 
conscious of the need for haste (III § 8, ahinakdlam upayas 
cintyatam; IIL § 116, after endless unnecessary talk, yavat te 


Story-contents of the original 189 


'sman prati saiinipataya nehagacchanti, tavad updyas cintyatan). 
In other words (cf. also on III. 1 above), Hindu story-tellers are 
not troubled by such a dramatic fault as this—the insertion of 
stories and other long-winded conversations at times when there 
is need for immediate action. (Such dramatic unrealities can be 
found in modern operas, especially. The reason for them is found 
in the conflict of motives; the Hindu story-books are not merely 
story-books, but also political textbooks, and they take the time to 
inculeate political lessons on occasions where such lessons would 
be out of place in real life. Similarly modern operas are not merely 
dramatic compositions, but also musical ones, and the composers 
put in musical pieces that are dramatically ridiculous.)—The 
style of the first part of this story in Tantrakhyayika is rightly 
called “‘ miserable’ by Hertel. But this again is a fault of T 
alone, and only shows the imperfection of T as a Pafcatantra 
version. SP and Pn begin with a practically identical sentence, 
which in T oceurs half way down the first page. The first half 
page in T is a wholly secondary insertion; and T contains 
other insertions later on in the story, as shown by the agreement 
of SP and Pn. (See my Crit. App. for proof of this.) It is very 
clear that Purnabhadra did not get the story from the Tantra- 
khyayika in its present form. While it is possible that he got 
it from an older form of T, which lackt the awkward expansions 
found in all our T mss., it seems to me fully as likely that 
he got it from his unknown third source, the reality of which 
is abundantly proved by other passages and is fully recognized 
by Hertel. This would account for the striking agreements be- 
tween Pn and SP, especially at the beginning of the story, but 
also at various other points in it. Probably, therefore, we find 
traces of this story in three independent streams of Pancatantra 
tradition; but certainly in two, which is quite enuf, on the 
principles laid down above, p. 58f., to establish its originality. 


ConsPEectuUS OF STORIES OF THE ORIGINAL 


Note.—For the abbreviations of names of versions in these tables see 
the introduction to Volume I. In the H column the first reference is to 
Peterson’s edition, the second, in parentheses, to Miiller’s; so in the Ks 
column, references are to SP. and (in parentheses) to Manikowski. The 
numbering of the books of the Arabie follows Wolff. In the Ar column x 
indicates that some Arabic version contains a correspondence. 


Conspectus of Stories 


190 


ee - i 






















































































OUIRA ST lourery | oWRA Ty leorera | URAL oures, | omuty | ours | omesry owed | euvig| “'* "** 190q pur ‘estozIO, 
| / | | | | | ‘asnoyy ‘MOIQ ‘aaoq saute. 
ep ai ie ere eu ie te Gore, Oe es ete fe Il 100g 
CT cI | cl 91 €T 83 13 — QT | OT LI ea IPL Suyyeo-uosy "ey 
FI ua! tl eT cI | 26 0% FAI ote Ot ts of ssoosuopY puv oyvug ‘suo.1ez] “FI 
SI eI | ST Ae 9 61 .2 iI FET Gt | °°" SEAL -HS0U0Ff pur IAQ -[LAG “ST 
él él Gl Ste) 01 Co LI ne EI Sie Lert plug pure uwiom-Mopg ‘ody ‘g] 
IT L | L Li ia. LT | al é Al | Tr SS eee | at Wag TT -7eq an 
| -OUIOZ) pur ‘yiIa-ApRoy ‘oU}IWOT “PT 
Or IT IT Ol Qa ee Ot es Cee et AT OT Or | Ir | °°" “%*%* esfozoy, pues eseey ‘O] 
6 or Or: =) 36 Pn ae ate oe eee Gx el Sah 6 OL | *1' 11 * vag pur sprrqpueng °6 
8 6 6 | 8 a and ie (OT) ATSB 8 6 JouRrg pue sisurejey s,uoryT'g 
L 8 8 9 = |= Ol 6 gor oer i 2 “ges BO[,, puw osno’y *) 
9 9 9 g Ue L Peto: a 8 9 | 9 9 ott. ltt "Oey. pie Bor. 
¢ G g iy oat ae L 9 “AI ¢ q G ven eos i ag aad © 
¥ ¥ t ¢ ee eT «| 9 L ¥ F fr rer tes quediog puv sMOID *F 
ae i pe pe : | sme ak oP | qe | o¢ 2g a¢ paMvg pure IOava Ay ployong “9 ¢ 
qa¢ | q¢ . qa¢ : r QF qf Pee oe q¢ ae see see yeyoeer pure suey “q ¢ 
Be | eg BE ne UF vy | At) 65] OG at Be eee ie I9[PUIMG puy yuo; ‘ve 
Z rs (eunoeq) | z Zo (ete rr ete Z | Z Z [ee Aon SenrliCg7 are yemowr fz 
I aed: Ee I I 1S ae lee | | ee, es I a oa espe, pue ody “y 
oui y ome) owt jeweig ower) oue.y ower | oul jj awerg ower) omen °°" [Ng pue uory somes 
| | 
ame oe I neers I I 1 ager 2 v aaig ana Be nS oe I 1oog 
~ eyynur / / _ rs 4 | E | 5 > 
-Vyey | Wa Ate sj SA WM | WOE | We BY yNMv yey 
i altea 4 | 1y | kg | 83 | og | ud | {dg | H N 1s | if | WUOTJONAPSUOIIY 
| “wosoy, | ee | | c Le | ; t 








etl 


Conspectus of Stories 


























































































































/ | ‘ouely Jo aed se siq} syeat} “yuvyy 44 ‘oasopo Ayyeqiaa you ynq ‘aweq} replwWIg 4 | 
| | ‘SUOISIOA I9YJO JY} UI Sv ysnf yxOquIa yng ‘IoTYN_-UIOYLery url A104s oye1vdes se pazUNOD JON x | 
= poet 4 ied L--g : owe (eure) 1! (6) 8 ‘III j Caters SYUOPL 94} paT[Ly OYM Joqieg *Z | 
I ie ee T | I ; L 6 bee I I Pat | SOTJSVO-ALY J[INng OM UeUIyeIg ‘*T | 
eWBIyT jou sour joerg owen) 1 Zz (ZTE) IT AT | omen ome OUR | ISOOSUOPT PUB UBUITTRIg : OUTeI LT 
A eee A APA ee SS ez A A A 4yoog 
I I I | A Tag | "A z= om aoe I ben SIVny puR 4IvazT JNOUYIM ssy 'T 
OUR. 9dIeLy oR | OUR OUR OW.) OUR a ou] (OUR ORL] — gttpoooig, pue ody sour 
AI A [iTS Stee eA Let AT Al pase SAL: CAT | AI 00g 
ae 7 : a | | | | 
Ol Gof Mt = PAG ROU 0s} 2 OL “5 T(MOFAL) OF -; OF] OT | *°* °** guedseg opr sdorg “OT 
6 8 BA ABVGP 6 eI SON etl dct ie at Se eg ee Lee co cng Uope]{- sno °G 
8 L b> 4 GSH ahs = STON AD POI ESIT re be S14 Be Steere copaedne) playa yes 
L OF sf 24:9 (V2 | £ Hiss, ee Pe. ob Ved, y "+ 918Q pur Jory ‘uvuTerg 2 
9 G G sig) 9 6 = Jo gt sar ih! me ee 9s | JOT pur ofr, Suno x ‘ur PIO “9 
¢ Ce ee t (pF) ¢ | Gc 57 ¢ (6) 8 °AT | B | ¢ oe eS: sonsoy pue urmMyeig‘¢ | 
7 $5 -| g (¢) F | t e Geel. ig ee tare Meee Poa ae he "**  odUA pu ospLyaegd 4Vp *F 
€ S- >| ra Cee Sat Gana I be OT PSEA fare tooyy pue sotvy ‘yuvydogy “¢ 
z 1 (7 ae fee T | s(eumrq)}| °° Al ee cake be reese SUTYE 7909 spars | 
1 He» ee | I | to odd ATA. Sea é TI i et I seas ULYY S.loyjuVg Ul ssy ‘Tt 
ouVig ou ome (OUR CMRI sR | BURA YT oe oUv AT | OUR AT : our. | °"* S[MO pure SMOID :omleLy 
| | | 4 
91 arena Tre eel 7 UI Ts) 1 4 Tr TT 400g 
- een: - x Sah ee BL aan Rapala ae me gg ttt Ayandeg s9u0g s400q “F 
¢ Sot ee g ae ahs, ote 1 48 g g "rs tts Teyoer Apooty) OOF, “g 
rs eatg,- G Oe Fee ot aes S$ &  *** UURSAg FYSN OF YSN *Z 
I I I bey es I | t 1 ax: 1 ee SYUOPT OMT, puv osnoyy *T 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


192 


gt a zF 
























































Ley 
ev 
e ov 
ev 
vatv 
fal Vv 
eal Vv 
atv 
9°? V 
+ Nhl Ah 





WM 











iL 


gid ae ae vee or I I (1) I I I ds 
: rye gears ae ie IF (e1) OF ‘ eg | 
I prey I I he sea pe spe ey tl i aes 
2 eos | wilel setts rr ete 6UZ | ge | aa —- | e | ar | 
amy, Rainn “eH aa At: Sar eee nee ar a Maa, a ee 
, ee oe ae We we IVz pare | (weL) Ie | - al ge | 
* «tote ae aM ae “ee C's, 02° | (1°31) $C 3 LZ 
. ace ea Te ree” eee vee £Z 61'S (VIL) SUF . LZ 
e one Sa 4 aneee seme [2 6 ard SIZ (G11) SI'F ° Oz | 
re fe eee a a lee ye jie |*. pers e} - peeiee 
. > O eee e ° ‘ie > eon UZ 91°Z | oa, © ales . / eve | 
£ OF ee ee Pe rorOUd|Cets O|CCeDare |” oz | 
. ove en ek se eee 7, CLI €°Z ann: Rbk ° ae / 
: Ut ea eae a Rn el'T lol (GOT) LF L G SA 
. RC aes 4 facneke c"ahe eee e | t | (21) ral ¢ f SA } 
oe oe eae ae oes ns RE Ai ae tal og 
e | eee | sues Sues recta eee 9'T QT (Teh) °Z ° | 8 
- +s alate . Me eee a oe rl eT (¢"¢) ard * | ) 
“ Meee te pape oN eee Sak oar 
| | | | | 
| 3 | WH | WM WM NM WY 
1y AS $y cae ST ae a ee SR H | N ds 











(‘ajou ‘ggt “d osye 999) 





"[VULSLIO ey} AOF pouunsse 
IVNISIY() OLALL 








l [ SA | 

eV i 

I | I yoo | 
. 


—uoydoyos | 
rT | 
€1 


él 








t~ 


| (% sa) 
[ SA 


/ VYALURYI LY 





| 





uol} 
-INAYGSUOIA | 


Map4o ayy wor ainjizdep soyeorpur od {y (UOptaiey)) poodvs- youl” 


JO SLIN()-LX4], IO SALOTASNOD 


193 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


ww 


a 








6 
Lev 
ce V 
Tey 


S6VICYV 
GeV 

é6$6 V J? 
fo V 
Vev 
ove, 
StTty 


Lt Bey. 
DESY, 
BIL. 
oY 
VIYV 
Pate y. 





($1) 89% 

(ZI) 19% 

(11) 99z'P9 (6) £93 
qe (6) $92 

(8) €9% 

(1) 69% 

® (9) T9Z 


p2q (9) 19% 
(¢)09Z P(E) Sez 
Po (¥) 6&z 

v (F) 6&Z 
1% (F) 69% 


(¢) sez ‘p (Z) 1g 


9 (Z) LEZ 


(eB (Z) 192 
(1) 992 





po 9Z 
1B 9% 
GS ‘FS 
61 


S6—16 
P» 02 
d¥ 03 

2P8r'p 
ST 

LT ‘peg 91 

OT ‘CT 











EG@SEy 
cl'y 
tI'F 
Zl 
OF 

LF 
is 
96' 
GZS 
Zoe 
j 





P'S 
gre °Or's | 
Z1'e 





oT 











[ 19}j8 














PUISVILY 
OT 9V 
Go ¥ 
oo ¥ 
ee 
oo 
Fo ¥, 
69V 
UV 
Laoy. 





in. 


MM Oo <H 20 6 
ANA AA 

—— ial 

> 


© rr 
A 


15 


Edgerton, Pancatantra. II. 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


194 


AK Hw 


4 


A 








SLV 
VLYV 
6 
zZ ped ‘g 
pue ‘9 V 
oF 











(11) 
(91) 
(ct) 
9 (FT) 


GLG 
TL6 
OLG 
696 


P (FT) 692 
qe (FI) 692 




















es 6'L SIT 
a et Mah 
Fae be a 
ieee a eh ee°9 SOT 
a ie a9 FOr 
se aes 91 ange 
ee oT ae 
Re: aes: = e 
98 “~ ra ye 
qPE “7 OT &Z 
qe Fe Fo 6 ZS 
{ere ‘gE 39 LTS 
[p 9 z¢] 1'9 91'8 
qv 2g 19 GI's 
Tg 9B°E FI’ 
0€ “6% Fo 21'S 
® 63 |22‘0%'S II ‘8°8 
RE Ts’ 6S 
Pp ‘8 8Z Ste L'8 
13 LI'¢ 9°8 
ee ee ais 2°93 
I °9 I td I 1dg 

















(oF) Fe¢ 





























ITI Telv | 6¢ 
(FFT) eag | TIT Tsty | 8¢ 
(47) IF gl ST GT | LT SA 
(9) OF ra LT ales de 4 
(6°81) OL'FS 01 SEY. jodst 
(s'e1) eT Fe 5! ADOT ZIV | «98 
oe owes . 91 eee | (@q sa) 
(ct) 6 II GT ar TT Sa 
"gia OT rT a GT Sa 
(er) ge 6 at Or | rsa 
me ea : ft ; bb ak 
(ar) 2g 8 TT 8 OT Sa 
(If) 9g L OT L | 6 8A 
(1g) 2% 9 6 ‘4 g SA 
(cg) TE G 8 9 LSA 
(TET) 612g 7) Sth. | ee 
(110}30q ‘OT) SI'S} SL LIrv | 8 
(It's) #1¢ : SL eIEV 1 8 
J Ax0yg jo puny 
(ors) ZT¢ o), 0Z'2 zg 
(1°8) 3°09 : cp SIL 1g 
(9°g) 1z'0¢ PL LTSOT*L 1° OS 
(g°8) 02°09 €L Gt", 6Z 
See = me ye 
(¢°8) 6T'0¢ , | eh er’ LS 
J 41039 
(¢°8) gt‘o¢ ra) OLV 9% 
IH | IN| Ids | Tht, acisaseent 








boo 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


nw WwW WK WK OK ORK 


now 


ac os os oD 


ww KK 


tal 








TOlLV 
Golv 
TOT V 
POL 
GI V 
T°q tty 
LT 
Sst V 
Sl V ‘VSlyV 
6.¢elV 


CTSA ‘SqQILy 
['q tL ‘etry 
eT 
ol 

pus “6 V 
6 V ‘L°9 ‘7 
3! 
VS V 
V8 V 
G.1v 
Or 
SLY 
LY 








9q 8 (ST 


p2 (3) 0 


eet Ee 


. 


« 


. 


86 


. 





Lg ‘@ ag “jo 
pcg 
qe cg ‘pote 





70) 





G3 FT 
Ta'¢t 
can ia 
SUPT 
LIVI 
SLT 
89 


GFT 
g9 
66ST 








(1°81) ¥'8¢ 
(9°81) ¥'8¢ 
(q°8T) $'8¢ 
(F8T) ¢€'8¢ 
(e°81) 1°89 
(7G) LF 
(¢9) gg 
(9) 96 


(OV'LT) STL 
(Z9) &¢ 
(6°91) 02°99 
(9a): ote 
(1°91) 1T'9¢ 
(ut0}j0q ‘GT) OL'9E 
(9°¢1) oa’ 
(@G1) 21°¢¢ 
(109}0q ‘FT) ET'Ee 
(64) $F 
(nT) gee 
(o'F1) Fae 








ert 


Sct 


OGt 
OGl 


OTT 
OTT 
OTT 
61 

oll 
IIl 














13* 


SA 
SA 


SA 


eed 


SA 


, SA 


SA 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


196 


A 
oo 
5 | 
< 





Oo 4 
12 
nN 


AO 


FZ 
G3 
SIV 
Ze 

IZ SA LTV 
9& 

€¢ ‘0% 
6T 

LOLYV 
991 V 


wn 





Aw KWH KK 


nA Ww 





liv | I 4g | 


. 


ép (st) e212 





oe 


EFF PIF 


TS 














GL 16 
eS od 
IL C6 
IGT CLT 
FS ‘69 OT 
SIT 7s 
SGé ; 

99 8h 
cg 9) 
Le'OL Ler 
ves) FL 
° a 
89 Gc) 
09 ra 
6¢ 1G 
1Z‘OT arent 
0z'0I StF 
I td I 14g 








— wy peg ‘dy 
— wy 2 ‘u 6¢ ‘dy 
(¢2) 29 








(FL) 99 

(Zz) 499 

(Tz) +9 
(¢°6T) moj 0q ge 


(¢°61) m0330q gg “jo 
(19) 19 
(99) 6¢ 

(OL'81) 2'8¢ 
(1°81) 9°8¢ 


It-E 





1¢ 
0€ 





‘19 








Go V 


TOV 


66 V 


9°16 V 
cle V 


TL 











I v0} 
-ONIYSU0IdY 


197 


Fael 


EoCT 
0G'GI 





LVGr 
q 9g SA Ioqyze 
SGT “Ff 
q 9¢ 
>: 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


ne 








spd 
€1'GS V 


6'°Ge V 


2's V 
£66 V 


1°33 ¥ 
E12 V ‘fp 








P? (02) Guz 
® (OZ) GLz 


PI 6S 
09 ‘9 qe 6g 
p2g¢ 


q (0%) 22 JF] 128g ‘Pre 


(0z) G22 
P? (61) FL 


q% (61) PLZ 





PLS 
dq LG 
qeyr¢o‘porge 


q egg 

cc 

py» EE 

as 

qege 
6I—O0G ‘P 6F 


. . 


29% 6P ‘PSP 


eee eee 


(8 Qt ‘LF 
OF 
CP 

099F 7 








6G ST 
6G ET 
Oa’ ST 
STST 
LY $T 
OTST 
GIST 
Piel 
I St 
OST 

6°SI 

Set 


9°ST 
ZS 
SEl FST 
TOCT 
92 
LVGL 
Var 
FIs 
OT'SI 
PSl 
Sal 
are 
orca 
LSE 
VOl 











ETSY | 

ST? 

Vs 
6606 
C6 06 
12°06 
ET'0¢ 
06°06 
F1'0¢G 
€1'0¢ 
GT'06 


8°0% 
SOT 
P06 ‘TT'6I 
IT'6T 
ZOT 





Lot 
vor 
S61 
6G 8ST 
LVS 
9t'st 
GIST 
9°8T 
ost 





vst 


(2°93) L'F9 
(°T%) 08°09 
(9°T%) ST'09 
(G'1z) 21°09 
(#°TZ) 91°09 


(F'TZ) LT'09 
(31%) S109 

















1d ad 1M ad 


wD 23 1 


re - 

N 

aH cH oH! 20 «1€9 

ewe ws rm Sw we Te RR eh et oe 


Aww Nn Ht dt 29 1290 DOD 


oO 
nN 








92 

JI 41039 
GL 
Gq SA 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


wn KH KH KK OK 


ia 


eT 


MoM 





8I'°Sc V 
LVEEV 
GI’se V 
61'E6 V 
ST ES V 
él'$e V 
L’St V 
9°€3 V 
oss V 
1&2 V 





LS 





P (€Z) 823 
P 2 ($Z) 823 “P 
q ® (Z) 82z 
(ZZ) L2z 


qe (1B) 922 

















OL ‘P2469 
® 69 
P89 
489 


*- ee 


qe% 89 
p89 
L9 ‘99 
L9 ‘99 “39 


a ee . 


Pog 
9 9 Jo 


aqe G9 “po +9 


eee eee 


qe Fo ‘Peg 

aq 2% Eg 
P29 
qe Z9 


19S 








. 

















| O06 





88 


T] Ai0zg Jo pugy 





S18 'TS'ST L1G ‘LE'PZ| (Z1'2LZ) $99 603 | OL’ Se ¥ 
63ST FILES i 606 | S'ZeV 
82'el 4 at on 8°ZeV 
9z°ST IL'¥Z ah 9°28 V 
CBT T1'FZ Ae. q°ce Vv 
G2'eT OL'FS ot SEV 
E21 8°FS “2 meee es eS 
GZ'oT LVZ 60% $°28 V 
oat 4. ~34% 80% 3°38 V 
OZ'eT ES'ES 803 T'3ev 

= eee > ny =a 
+6 Sel (88) 82 9P rae 
CT'cT ZIEZ 2 EE Be rIsS V 
8'CT $°8Z he Gare my fs Vv 
LST 1'e2 | (#92) 02°89 F02 €°Ig V 
9°¢T ene | (F992) 0's9'30 } * $03 ee 
erent ZUG i etl Ars OS. Tey 

GCL ‘8B P1122 ‘EL'Ss Sate ica F0Z L'1e Vv 

SS ESET ZI ‘G°2% cee reds. A ‘nk | L ‘Og Vv 

cn tana 9 ‘T'S ce oie ' hae 2°08 V 
OZ'FT E212 oy ee 5S T'0¢ V 
SIFT 1ZUZ ona a Bis T'08 V 
SIFT IZ'1z : ee G02 3 
IVI E1'IZ pre "| (a ‘g08) | 663 V 
OL'FT {Itz ee oe ; £0 1'6ZV 

eat VIZ Sys G0 163 V 
| 
I tg | 114g Il | IIN | Ids | fyi 





| -onIysu00ey 








199 


Conspectus of 'Text-Units 


4 


ww KK AW 


a 


A 


eo Oo 


a 








6°93 V 
8°93 V 
e°93 V 
16S V 
SPS V 
$53 V 
Ve V 


eee 


EPSPS ESV 
66°€6 V 
1GSt V 
02°66 V 





(1%) 68% 
(9%) 18% 
q (92) 183 


q ® (GZ) 08z 
P 2 ($3) 613 


ee Sia see 


q ® (FZ) 6LZ 


® (FZ) GLZ | 





q@ Gy ‘PL ‘EL 
QU FL 
PSL 
D9 F2 


9? el 


BaL poy 


eee 





8°96 
L9G 
G96 


V'9G 
0G'G6 
61°SG 


GL'GG 
L1G 
6°98 ‘LT ‘6 'E% 
VSG 
SSG 
GEG 


6G'SS 
Sol 
GZ ‘OL'ZE 
91'ZE‘8S'TS 
9216 
PETS 


Fo1S 


COTS 
SITE 
LUTIG 
IT TS 
GI'TS 
VETS 





Gl 9s 
IT9€ 


V'9E 
P'9E 
03°Ss‘OT'6' PE 
VTE 
VS 
Gre 


02'E 
291 
GT ‘ese 
GSS “SE 
ara 
Sets 


61S 


LITE 
reg Gel & 
els 
IETS 
61E 
6 TE 





(9°%g) T°89 
(F' Sg) MOZ30q 729 
(F°ZE) WI07V0q 29 
J (eae ‘eT'2%) | 
|ut0j30q 29 ‘ge9f 





TS 











ITS 
TI‘ ST 
6°8T 

q TT Ato 
6°81 

9° ST 
9°ST 


vst 
€° ST 


| 
| 


cSt 

(FET) 

ect 

19 Jo pug 
race 
TSI 
O$l 

qT 41039 
6ZT 
SéI 





TST 
OG LT 
6T 24 
6T LT 


9€ V 
vg 
o°G8 V 
Ice V 
v°t8 V 
b Re-Y¥. 


Lora, 


6& V 
€T es V 
eT 68 V¥ 
ct G8 V 
Il'G¢ 


eee 


Lol 
(931) 
Ger 
Ter 
BIIJ A1039 
GGT 
CG SA 
Gél 
Ter 
Oer 
6TT 


Sit 


(211) 
911 
CIT 
iaat 
raat 

(ZIT) 





Conspectus of Text-Units 


“ 


6E°LT 
8E°LT 
ge"LT 
ToLI 
PE LT 
cE Lt 
L@'LT 
9°LT 


“ 


~A KKH KK KK 


x Go Li 
* Go'LI 
% OGLT 
x OB LT 


x cT’LtT 
x HELI 
% O'LT 
x SLT 
x 9 Lb 
x o LT 


x Tit 
x Og’9T 
x 93°9T 
x GZ'9T 
. 9°91'SE'eT 














6I'LS ‘S'LZIL'SS ‘QV'LE 
F193 Z'LE 
ZL'9G €Z'9E 
I “d 1 Ids 





92 6'8V 
P38 L'St 
128 OST 

91°08 SOL6SIA'TH ‘9°OF 

PT'OE VIP 
aT'0¢ GIP 
$08 Gl'OV 
108 PlOP 
a SLOP 
L'0¢ pad 
T08 J} TOP 
1°63 OOF 
816% LOF 
Q1'63 GOP 
Z1'6S GOP 
1163 2'OF 
8°63 2o'6E 
9°6% ‘9T'S2! ST ‘H'6E 
FI'8z o'6E 


O18 ‘83°26 1 Zz ‘TL'SE 
CG LE OSE 
OBLE 8°8E 











(F1'S8) 61°69 
(¥1'¢g) 8T'69 
(21°98) 8t'69 

(ST'98) 2°02 

(IT'9S) 9°02 
(6°98) 83°69 
($°98) 33°69 


(21°98) LI'69 


(IT'S) 91°69 
(Olas) 91°69 
(69g) — 
(1°98) F169 
(9°¢¢) F169 
(o°a¢) e169 
(P98) 21°69 
(ET PS) 0169 
(21h) 6°69 


(Ol'¥S) 8°69 








| 
| 





Its. If 06 TOL 


13 =| O1'02 Oot 
OFZ 6°02 691 
68% L'0% Bar 
68% 9° 0% Lol 
882 G'0% 9a1 
LEZ 6°08 ogy 
98% 3'0Z Pol 
98% 1°02 go] 
oe 108 zal 
eis f aheat IGT 
#e3.—«| «OT 6T Oot 
reo—|:«PT Gr GPI 
eee | «FL Gr SPI 
eso | ater LPT 
ez. | Iter OFT 
ez.| OFT oF] 
182 6°61 PPI 
08% 6°61 SPI 
0g% G°6I raat 
62% €'61 FI 
622 2°61 OFT 
822 1'6r 681 
12e—«| OT" 8t Sel 
uze— | GT'8I LET 
92g | st‘et | get 


OTT] 41099—v JT] A104g Jo pugy 





201 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


ia 


1 


a! 


a i a a | 


va 








OVOE V 
6°0€ V 
9°0€ V 


T'06 V 


Sc V 

zZ yaed ‘ge 
LEV 
ELEV 


06°81 
8& 
OTST 
6°8T 
L’st 
9°8T 
o°sT 
FST 
€°8T 
6ST 
rst 





(83) 8 











6'FE 
8'TS 
9° FE 
GTS 
“Vs 
6 VE 
SVE 
Sgt 
Cos 
Gees 
LST 
IG'€E 


0G'S§ 
61'S€ 
61'Es 


IT'S 
Gor 
Lé€ 
9°8¢ 
VE 

9 GE 

VVGs 

PVGE 

TVGE 

OSE 
6°CE 
LCS 














eee eee 


(S1'LE) TZ'OL 


aae 


eee eee 


(F1'Z8) 6°89 
(2E'SS) 8°89 


(¢°98) 13°69 
(2°98) 13°69 
(T'98) 02°69 
(g1°¢¢) 02°69 
(GT'¢g) 61°69 




















CeOTV cst 
PF POPV Fst 
§ ®OVV st 
Z°eOrV | (z8T) 
T° 807 V TST 
T°?0r V Ost 
T'®OF V 6LT 
8g 6G SA 
66 V SLT 
66 V LLY 
LG 8g SA 
8E_V 9LT 
9¢ LG SA 
Tt 28 V¥ CLT 
Liey FLT 
TLE V ELT 
DIT] 410399 Jo pug 
L16é GLt 
gg 9g SA 
6 1G TLT 
T'1G OLT 
61°06 69T 
L106 89T 
91°02 EST 
cr 0¢ 99T 
CT 06 COT 
€T' 0G Pot 
GL’ 0% g9T 
IT 0%@ e9T 








Conspectus of Text-Units 


202 





















































x O11Z (v gg) 9 18% ee ZI'LE L'tg (cern)erest | * GLE. | ST"SS 80% 
x S'1Z CBEST £08 50 fe aks O1'LE gro | (et'stt) gest | ° LZ G1 SZ L0Z 
x 91% (ees ae yes). eee ete 6° LE ie (FT'SIT) west | ° TLS ZI ES 90Z 
x SIZ =| (Ve zs) Pr 9gz qe 1g L'LE 6°Se | (gI°stt) geet |: OLS Oz 60% 
x VIZ | (@ 28) 9 983 P? 08 9'LE seg | (erert) geero | * | One 3?| 6°82 £03 
. eee eee 8 © Ae ee een oe beg ia a rig * “+e / 6°k3S (¢02) 
x Fe'0% «| (PTS) 1982 qe 0 VLE gg | (@tstt) eeet | ° Oe TFL 30% 
x S'0% ie ees ie wer €2'9E €°E¢ (rS1T) Fest | ° 69% 9°€% 102 
x EE'0Z be sian: ene a Zo'9g seg |). (hesih)e-eer.. - 69% gS 002 
x zeoz =| (TE) % 98% B08 029 Lee. | (obemeeeet |: * 89% v°&3 661 
x 62°02 aa B08 ‘62 61'9E 02'SS (e'SIl) 2ser} * 89% P&S S61 
A 41039 
x 92°02 eS ee Ee at LV'98 8I'%g Spee, L9G §°€Z LOT 
x 1 (9 Tg) Pegs pos) cot O1% (FIADEGEAT 4 2¢ 1¢ | 09 T9 sa 
x 6103 |\{4¥ 18 poe) poqggz] «'* °C" L'98 @'Z9 er ee ee ; 493 anda 96] 
x 91°03 =| (poqeog)qvces‘zorgz} °° *'* «| gtgg ‘pcg F ZG ae. ; €9% LU°23- | G6l 
x S1°0G =| (Pos ‘poGz)epores| “°° ** g"G¢ ZSG (9°07) TTL Z9B | OT GS 61 
x ETO | P(6%) F836 J eer ex a°o¢ ZG (G:OF) TIL Z9Z C133 E61 
| AT 41019 
x 1g V eee ee Sid oe 8Z'FS OZ'TE (OF) OGL 192 Iv V Z6I 
x OF  |av(6z)F8z‘po(8z)s8z; Gey 641 10 (OZT) 901 9¢ 0g 6S 09 84 
x 8t'0E V| &(8Z) §8z po 2D FoF 91'TG (SOF) Gt Boz 2 10tV 161 
x P2'08 V paces 1Pp,L‘P2°9L| Ha'rE GL'IG | (woy0q 6g) FZL) LoS 1 40FV O6I 
x BOS V} 1(8z) 8s‘ |Ge%gL‘pIOGn Jo] OZ EE IV Tg J aS vena LES "J2| 1° 0rV 681 
% eae Se Se ae Bre ieee ea 2 AOtinie ton ae 
X €l'0e V Coa ar) ore a eee atk Il'te Cee t aa cee e aa & 9°COTV / 981 
I ug | T1dg IH IN| rag Pi he 











203 


Conspectus of Text-Units 








LETS 
CE1G 


VE 16 
GETS 
cv 
9a 1G 
Cole 
EGG 


G6 1G 
1G1G 
BETS 
8T1S 
ET 1S 


(4% 18) P9164 i 

(p29 98) 4% 162 es 
(p 98) 4 16% SSE 

| (4e9¢)P906s | ~° * 

\(v9g‘Gg)oqvogs ‘po6ss| *** 

(q% Gg) P29 68S 39} 





ee ee 


(q $§) P 88z 68 





(p2 $¢) 1% 88z 78 
(2 $g) & 88z €8 
(q ¢¢) P 18% 28 ‘P2 18 





(P FE) 4 68z cor ae 


| 9°OF 


OF 
OP 
TOP 
€6°6E 
66 66 
61°6E 
61'6E 


| Sl 6E 
9T'6§ 
GT'6¢ 
VT'6E 


6°6E 
8°6E 
L’6§ 
6°6& 


| 03 ‘ST'8§ 





ZT ‘68 
L°8¢ 
o’8é 
8s 
68S 

COLE 
LVLE 
FILE 











(FL3r) SPL 


(FL'Sr) WhL 
(ae) 15th 
(ET'@F) 13'S2 
(ZL'°BF) 1B'Sh 
(LISP) O6'EL 
(G°2F) SI'eL'7 


(6°3F) SI'SL 
(92h) S1°SL 


(Z1°61T) OL'9ET 
fe isiant 
(IL6TT) ST'Set 
(OL6LT) ST'SST 
(6°61) LISS 
(6°GET) 91°E8t 
(9°61) OTe 
(S'6L1) 9T-¢eT 
(2°61) GT°¢et 
(L°611) PEGE 
(Q'6TT) et'est 
































3 V FES 
AI 41039 Jo pug 
Lie (gz) 
LG TES 
9°& 18% 
FG 0% 
€°SZ 6ZG 
Bey SSS 
1°os LZ 
STF (922) 
SI FZ GZS 
LI°#3 FZ 
91'FS | = 82 
lige =- | Bee 
A 41049 Jo punt 
TI FZ 12S 
SI PZ 022 
ZI FZ 613 
IL FZ SIZ 
19 39 SA 
9 °F Liz 
9° FZ 12032 
P'S en ee 
3 FS FIZ 
(ae EI 
T:82: 1. 2316 
LSE naehe 11S 
91°36. | | O13 
| FT'8s | - 602 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


val 


A 


nw K WK 


4A 


wm 


a 











19 


(po LF) J 10g 


(qv LF ‘po 9F) poqe log 


(qUGgTr ‘POFt) 66S 
(q & FF) PX 86S 





(Ph) 4863 
(O4SF ‘PSr) V86S ‘P ‘A L6Z 
(UEP OG) 9 ‘e162 
((% 8h) P296z 


. eee 


(& SF ‘P TF) 99966 
(P9 1F) 1% 96% 
({° Th ‘PI0F) G6S 
((% OF) P2 F6Z 


(p° 6g) 4 ® $62 
(4% 6g) P2 6% 
(p> 8g) 4% g6z 
(€ GE ‘Ogg) 0 ‘eggs 


| ({® gg) P® 26s 
(p2 18) 4% 26S 





ee 





P 2 80T 
4% BOT ‘LOT 


90T 
COT ‘POT “po gor 








61°LG 
Ol'aP 


a 
PoP 


EVT9 
Ort9 


619 
9°T9 


(qv QF ‘PICF) ODE |948 Gor ‘p9q ZOTIF Gh ‘ESFH) CLIO 


(GUZt) SPL 
(L°3h) LI'SL 


(9°SF) OL'EL 
(¢°ZF) PI'SL 





G2 ZOl ‘TOT | ear ‘erer| 19 ‘G'6G| §=6(4'SF) EI'SL 
P°OOT Ve? LT'8¢ (GL'It) 2tSL 
q%QOT ‘P9 66) BeZr G1'8¢ (FIP) ET en 
1% 66‘P286| 61°3F E1'sg (FUTP) 1T'Sh 
B86 GT ‘Sh'3r |ZE ‘6'8¢ (et'14) OSL 
P? 16 El%r | 8‘F's¢ (ST'IF) o'e2 
G%126‘P296| SF F°SG | (S21 SA) GOT SA 
8.26 cx jae aa pies 
1% 96 LCP €'8g (OV'Th) 2°eL 
p? G6 LOY $°8¢ (61h) 9°82 
GGG ‘PIPG| FTF 02'LE (Sh) Gez 
Pp? €6 VIF CL'9g (OTF) Fen 
4 F6 “J 9°TF LU'9SE ‘wee 
(Uv 6 PIF ‘OZ'OF| F1'9G (Olt) PSL 
1% $6 ST'OF Z1'9¢ (VIF) een 
P2426 9LOF I1'9¢ (WIh) sez 
v Z6 91'OF TT'9¢ (SIF) oéL 
a re ig ae se ge 
16 ram! FIZ (Z21) SOT 
eae Ai aad pore atc 
[og I td I 1dg ll H 

















IIN 

















908 l' PPV tera 
908 Vtrv LGS 
TA At0yg Jo pug 
a at doe 
¥08 G1°93 eter 
€0¢ S1°93 #26 
10 8°9Z SoG 
10 8°93 rare 
008 L°9% 1GZ 
00g 9°93 0&% 
66% b'96 6FS 
666 $°93 StS 
16 €°9Z L¥Z 
163 3°9% OFZ 
16% 1°92 CFS 
966 1°92 ts 
C6Z 1°92 St 
¥62 SIGs rare 
rms LI az 1¥Z 
$63 CT"es OFZ 
£6 PISS 6E% 
G63 §1° Ss 8E2 
G6 EI SS LES 
TA 41039 
263 Sh V 9€% 
Feo 9 GQ SA 
682 oP V CEs 
Ids TZ ak 





-ON.I4su0Iey 





205 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


Oo 


A KH Ka, 


x el « a 


nw oK 











éL°8& V ‘f 


i6F V 
38 V 

9 ‘388 V 
V8 Vv 
tPF 





eee eee 


eee eee 


eee ee 
eee er 6 6 


Pp 2 (0G) FOE 
q ® (0G) FOE 


eee ee 


Log v‘sssy| (6h) sos ‘po (SF) Z0¢g 


Toe V 
OVE V 


eee see 


q ® (SF) ZOE 








O<GT 
I3T 
GIL ‘1% 12I 


eee . 


6) 9 GIT 


SIT ‘POLTT 
OZIL ‘7 


q@cTI—sll 
Biol 
thie 
P94 OTT 
BOTT 
60T 





¢'09 
LEG 
G&G 
6&6 
6&6 
TO'6¢ 
TE@ 
ST'6g 
666 
8°6¢ 
LGG 
6°6¢ 
9Ge 
€¢°8q 
GE 8G 
GG 
66°84 
&GG 
G66 
1G6 
IPSs 
OT'8¢ 
9°89 
G°8g 
G°8g 
616 
GO LG 
TO'LG 
T@'Lg 








(T'9F) 9192 
(9e1) Sat 
(cei) Zar 


euene 


oe eee 


(PET) Tat 
(ST ‘S°cr) TL ‘92 
(ET) 6TT 
(°F) 61'S 
(TST) SIT 


(TPP) STS 
(631) SET 
(831) FIT 
(131) SIT 

(leh) STP 

(FTE'S) SUFL 

(Z'St) OVFL 

(TUSh) ST PL 

(IT'Sh) ST'PL 


(lsh) PPL 


(I'Sh) SPL 





PIE 
SIé 
GIS 
ITE 
ITE 
9g 

LOE 


LOS 








€° 64 

GL 

FL 
PEL 
qq? €h 
og V 

Gh 
Tey. 

TL 
0g V 

OL 
6v V 

89 
6 8h V 
TSpv 

Lg 
LTV 

G9 

99 

v9 
6190 V 
Eat. 9? V¥ 
6 V9FV 
Teor V 
Tt 97 V: 

69 
oct V 
Varv 
Tot V 








PLZ 
9), SA 
GL SA 
F), SA 
EG) SA 
(¢22) 
(ZL SA) 
(313) 
TL SA 
IL3 
OL SA 
OLS 
69 SA 
(692) 
(892) 
89 SA 
19% 
19 SA 
99 SA 
CQ SA 
99% 
C9% 
$9% 
G9 
29% 
#9 SA 
19 
09% 
69% 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


206 

































































x tik | saree q 921 1199 Bho: floes a2 - | Te 40 “ee 06% 
x VTITA 24 (¢¢) 108 D2 9T O1'99 2°e9 Sie are ss a 4S 18 pis 68% 
x VIITA | 4®(¢¢) 208 % 981 6°99 a9 pee te T8¢ PIs | 882 
£1049 ILA 41039 
x LP V e238 > oo 2 ee ey soe 1°99 1Z'F9 om S @o% ° Ogg gc Vv 18% 
x 9¢ (zg) 908 P G2r 99% BQ aba? Sik 49 | * 92 gg 9g SA 
a Pp? 4 (T¢) cog PEI ‘GST 199 g'F9 oy ise : th vLSV 98% 
ace ave eer cee ee 1:99 eee ae ae . tag e1CV (¢gz) 
x sty‘9rv; e(Ta)gog | 9G VEST | O89 aaah say Giie ; OLE SLEV | 82 
x 990 V et ad gE Pea S escg =| ¢79' | (88h) LIBL OLE L'LgV | e882 
x LOPV apt inee e qv OTT 8349 es ($°8h) LT'SL ; OLE T'Lo V ZBS 
x 8g ety ge Sin 9 es T&Z re (2°8h) 28h S(GhT) ZEIT} 9G | FLSA ‘GLE *8 G8 SA 
x TO0cV Ct ei £Q% LTT FoG9 et (OV'LF) SOLE GLE 9¢V 18z 
x T0¢cyV $62 es deg ¥3°S9 rae (9°LF) OT'LL CLE 9° V 08% 
x GG Wvey es. VR eEE: E9S = (ZFT) 631 GG Gh 8 Fg 8a 
Sal” sek’ "ite og: LT¢9 a (U10}30q OF) BLL) * 69¢ Tec y 6Le 
psi Sy fhe ee LVS9 tes (w10}30q 9F) BLL) 69 I'a¢ Vy 81S 
: ri ails weet oe : & te wr, © oe Ee Borer 
x ¢g A ee eee es. IGG ais (TFT) Sat #¢ GL T8 | @gsa 
a x ee aay 2 A ae ARS 4M ye ey aa raha 
. eee ai aye erin Pera, CW: | 9°G9 é ite eksre cas. ° SP’ SIL 6S ! (122) 
; Heit neg oe ay is oe. hee ring ES tai) 
. eee eee a_ete eee eee 1¢9 ‘ea er eet enue . wes % 7CV (922) 
é E18 V St pias TIT 6F at (OFT) LET EG Th SL 6L SA 
x 6P ‘SF pi TS fed ei EE OFS ea (LET) PSE ; 69 LL 8 SA 
x 2P ‘TIP V “Dit eet Zot ‘p29TE, 9:09 | 02 ‘6'e9 | (19) 9T°9L : oce eo V CLZ 
x SOFV ‘ody Eas Peds 2 Qkz F¥Z eet ESS gas 92 LL SA 
Lty | 14g | 1 $x I 09 ltd | I ids | Il H | II N | Ids Fe 








207 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


el go 


aia 


09 

19 

6g 
VUSV 
GTGV 
PTta Vv 

THE VSS V 

og V 


OTIIIA 
OLTITA 
GIA 
STIIA 
LTA 


GIITA 


OIUITA 


VIIA 


SIA 














eee oe ee 


(e@g9 ‘po Z9) DQVOTE 
P 2 (0&) FOE 7 


P (¢¢) 608 
P (¢¢) 608 

9 (gg) 608 
2 q (¢¢) 60g 


q 2% (cc) 608 
4 (F4) 808 
P 2 (FG) 808 


eve see 


oq (#¢e) 80g 
¥ (FG) 80¢ 

q 8 (¢¢) LOG 
Pp? (gg) L08 








eee eee 


® 6ST ‘P SEI 
SST 
P LET 
LET ‘9ST 
GST ‘PTET 


q*® Vet 


PP? $I 
2 Set 
q & est 
Pp? Zer 
{PZET PITS 
q% TST 
Ost 
B ORT 
94% 6ZT 
9% 6ZI ‘fo 
® 6ZIT ‘fo 
DIGEST" sat 
P92 8G 


Lol 








G9G 

9°OL 
9°02 
COL 
G02 
GOL 
TOL 
8°89 


9°89 
F'89 
$°89 
Pa LO 
Go'L9 
0Z'L9 
6T'L9 
ST ‘&T'L9 

SILO 
L'L9 
G19 
C399 
03°99 
8199 
91°99 
F199 
$199 

















(€¢1) OFT 


(G1) 681 
(6°09) 61°62 
(S°0¢) 81°62 
(1°09) LT'6L 
(10S) LT'6L 
(¢°0¢) G16 
(g°0S) ¢T'62 

















16 06 SA 
06 68 SA 
68 88 84 
L8 L8 84 


6°69 V vIg 
Er $9 V: cea 
L's9 ¥ Gls 
TE Gay: TTS 
1°39 V OTE 
Tso V 606 





l'6oV 808 
ITA Atoyg Jo pug 
IL 3g LOE 
OL'Zs 908 
6°ZE Gog 
uae FOS 
bas £08 
G°SE ZOE 
¥ SS (10g) 
Gaze 008 
Ze 662 
(ce 866 
9T'Te L6Z 
SL°TS 96% 
Ol'TS G68 
6'Ig 62 
8° Ts | G6 
9°18 (262) 
g'Te | 163 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


208 





CQgsa ‘PTE 
29 PART a as 


peo 2 
CV (0489) PLTE Pore 

Cecelia ies 

Leg ¥ ‘yo (1 ¢9) P ote ‘po 

eTag ¥ pet 

I1e¢ V Sees se 


¢ cc V si Fell » ere 
Tog y \ aes Sak 
GG Jaye asoud J 











14g 





























CES TL 26 Gor FOT SA 
Ee ed FFS ae bay <2 SP OL 16 POT GOT SA 
ces GFZ as (191) SFT 69 06 SOT GOT SA 
poset ZFS ahs 89 68 ZOL TOT Sa 
aR? bods TFS ite Sa 19 88 101 OOT Sa 
ice a. cae Rae HG - ae amen 
Ppa est hdd C8Z (O9T) LFT e9 | “98 66 6 SA 
LZ'SG EVOL rs oie 89 V | (28) 
aks ae re a ae ‘nity ee oiik 
FAL Bit (FTE'S) LT'I8 OgF S'L9V | 928 
SS Le we (T'S) 9T'I8 637 9V | gE 
SRE Be SET ae ($13) 91'T8 63P L'L9V | F328 
ea -_ eee 20 is 5 i, 
hae Seas 3 hes eh ; oe af sean 
Peres Sm re Se ks ‘Sy oa a seus 
oe PLZ E8z (GET) OFT 39 §8 6 G6 SA 
LeNRESs LE? SSL (OF'3¢) OTIS : SIP 99V | $z¢ 
eB Raa GLE (81) SPT 19 38 £6 6 SA 
‘¢ i (T'1¢) ITS i cov | @2¢ 
ie BLS SLZ (Q&T) SrT 09 18 6 16 SA 
ert She t OFT (ST°T¢) 02°08 ZIP 5 1t9V| 13g 
PE SEEE TED 612 (FITS) 02°08 rae "d79V| 068 
PPI ‘f iL 6TL (SIT) 61°08 LIP I'at9V!| 6Tg 
P24 31 ESOL gT'0! (ZIT) 81°08 OIF e'ttoV| sie 
VOPI ‘POLFT| zZe'0L LTOL (TT'E&) 21°08 60F ZePOV| LIE 
qd? 11 18°02 LOL (6°1¢) ¢T°08 80h | Te POV] gre 
FI 0g'0! LOL (31S) 9°08 80F L'®F9V| Sig 
Log Titecbestads IH | IN Ho [MN Tas | TL | oabgaodon Ids ee Bee 























209 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


4 


w 


wn 


67S 


GE 
VVE . 
SVE 


FOV 

PL 
SOV ‘SOV 
$9 








GE FJ | 


(8 ¢9) 9 8I1¢ 
_ (P¥9) A8TE 


eee ee 
oe 8 ¢@ eve 


(p 99) 4 OZE 


(p9 99) |B OZE 
| (4 9) DP STE 
(2 $9) & STE 





i 
| 





P22 6FT J 
6FT 
SrT 


q SFI 3 
Pp? LET 
@ DFT 


Qe LPt ‘POT | 


OFT 
Po ort 
q ecrt 





O19L 
6°91 
SOL 
LOL 


GOL 
L°v'9L 
VOL 
$:9L 
SOL 
1:91 


036'GL 
164 
LVeL 
C66 
P66 
C66 
66° FL 
T66 
066 
686 
PEPL 
986 
C86 
TPL 
Te'EL 


LLG 








SI'TL €0'0L J 


eee 


(S'TSt) L'FPT 
2181) OFFT 
(VEST) GPPT 
(GTOST) PFFT 
(CL O81) GFT 
| (PL'OST) PFET 
(FLOSL) PEFI YP 
| SL'OSl) S'FFT 
| (GL-O81) SFET 
| (ST OSI) SPF 


| 


(9°FS) 81°38 





(F91) 0¢ 


(21°¢¢) 


eee 





L'68 


(291) GFT 








lor) 
t= 











él 6E 
TT 68 
6° 6E 
6° 6¢ 
8°68 
L°68 
L°6& 
9° 68 
c° 6§ 
¥6& 
¥°6E 
TLV 
OTT 
SL V 
CTT 
FIT 
STT 
oLV 
ett 
TTT 
Ort 
LY 
60T 
SOT 
TOL V 
TOL V 
LOT 
90T 





bPE 
SVE 
oF 
Ite 
OVE 
6E¢ 
8s 
LE&é 
9SE 
ht 
FEE 


ITA4104g 


Ess 
CTT SA 
SES 
FIT SA 
(TT SA) 
GIT SA 
18g 
TIT sa 
OTT SA 
GOL SA 
Ogg 
(SOT $4) 
LOT 8A 
63g 
838 


90T $A 
COT SA 


14 


Edgerton, Paiicatantra, II, 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


210 


~ Kw KK KK 


a ig 


nA ow 


A 





oe) 3 oe eee oie eee eee ees eee eee . see 9° IP (69¢) 
8Z'SE fogra 22: ie 282 SULL Gg, | (OT BST) FI'SFT : 906 Qtr 898 
ay eee po BOT Jo +3 sine Sayre aa bak Str stax 
12°58 ee ane eas sale Wa a x Seca rsh, : sai rie 108 
QL a ah bi ep ign 866 066 | (29°AI)09°'AI | 18 SOT LIT OTT 8A 
GT ‘ores Toa ot q% ECT 6'LL SS PL (SET) G'SFT : 16h 31° OF 99 
ecg | (4% 29)P°0ce | PTET Pp SLL TSPL Ol (SBT) OFOPT Jar LOF Iror | 998 
6'°S¢ Laser 6 Pees are al 3° (SST) PSF . L6F TL OF FOE 
9°¢g a eae qv IeT SLL 13'PL (eel) e'eFI ; 96F OL’ OF €9 
EGE  |(qe99‘po'veg) Ers*osTE BIGI OLL 6T'FL |(SUTet) sett 7 e6 6° OF 398 
2'c¢e eee eee oe 6 nis eae eve (FL'TET) lori ° eee "OF 19¢ 
1'eg ess eke aed ot QL) STFL | (PITS) Terr CoP L' OF 09g 
SEF pares o 5 a SLL CUPL (9 TS1) OL PFT 5 68F 9°OF 6S 
CET pia aiees q ® EET Li PUPL (C'TSl) 6 FFT ; 68F COP gag 
SE FS ops * CBSGI ‘O 1G] bats ua, (STSl) 6 PPT ; 88 POF Lge 
eee a aoe eee eee eee coe ee ie ’ we * Aw . eee ¢° OF (9¢¢) 
EFS a TY 1 Oe 63'9L TPL (PIST) S PPT SSP $° OF ece 
phe Se ee ae ae Sas a ee ere aay 2 OF sue 
1e°FS Siig a 82 Pp? OST ZOOL SI'PL (TSl) LPT : LF L‘OF ecg 
OS’ FS ees e q 2% OST 13°92 IV PL BE Se? 18 1‘ 0F oo 
eaten ean. rt nee aicel Ae? a eee fae aT“ee toe 
eee praie eae eee a wie LUOL ece Pore pet eee ° eee LI°6E (o¢¢) 
a a ered mae ds ey e ew mise onp wee aye 
ae yea er ee oho) BS Amina Pore ; ad = ae 
CZrs (42 99) Pp» 6TE “Po bbs {5 POL a rRE arts : aa Cl 6E LFS 
oat et oes ae Jae ava) oa, Weak : os¢ | Br"¢e ae 
netey Ser eS: is: FES mira Pes; Biche 2 Se aaP 2 ine 
SS EE ee BS a ae eee ee eee ee. 
14g 18x Tog | req | 114g IH | JUN stay, |} a = eee 















































211 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


4 


Kw WH 


a 


4 


Mo 


~ KK KK KK RK HK 


“4K 











69 V 
08 
89 V 
6L 


8L 
LOV 
LL 
99 V 
BOL 
199. V. 
Veo V¥ 


FES 
TE"9€ 
86'9€ 
96°9€ 
Fo 9E 
66 9E 
6T9E 
91'9E 
ol9s 
TI9€ 

G9E 
FE'cs 
¥E SE 
TS°SE 








(qe FL) PA LZE 
(G1) qeLZg ‘PI9ZE 


eee eee 


(P29 ZL) 4% 9zE 


(qv GL) Pp? Gag 
(P2 TL) 4B Sze 
({° Ty ‘p2 OL) FaE 
(102) PgzEg 

(4 02) P zg “79 
(® OL) 9 EzE 
(Pp 69) 1 ¢z¢E 
(2 69) ¥ Ez¢ 
(q B69 ‘989) po'e sss 
(2 89) ® Za 
(P $9) 4 Zé 
(q%g9 ‘Pp 19) Tag 





2 UG OT 
T9T 
“GOT 


O9T 
p26¢ 
24 6ST 
q % 6ST 
Pp? gat 
94 8GL 
q B get 
po? LET 
qe Lor 
9ST ‘GT ‘PFT 
9 Pcl 
q& Pet 
p2 Ect 





€t'ss 
cT¢ 
6'€8 
Glé 


TI¢ 
69T 
16°G8 
OTE 
91'Z8 
61°08 
CT°SS “8T'08 
8t'0s 


¢T'08 
OF ‘F°08 
T08 
F08 
ST6L 
TT6L 
9°6L 
66 8h 
LV8L 
cT'82 
8°8L 
88h 
L’8h 
6T LL 








90€ 


9°62 ‘0Z°SL 


8°82 
OE “J 

o 8h 

VSL 


GG LL 
ERIGTLL 
OrLL 
622 
WLL 
0G°9L 
GTOL 
6°92 
GOL 
T92 
STGL 
LT GL 
LVL 
9°SL 











(6FT) LET 


(691) FET 


(Tce)! 363 


(Ol FE) 61°38 


(2°S6T) TT'9FT 
(9°SET) OL OFT 
(9°SeT) OL OFT 
(Set) 6'9FT 
(FSET) 6°9FT 
(FSI) SOFT 
(rest) SOFT 
(S'e81) LOFT 
(SE°ZeT) LVSPT 
(6U'SRT) OUSFL 


(SI'ZET) 9TSFT 
(IT'GET) ST'SFT 
(IVZEL) SU'eFT 


v8 





08 V 68 
Get Pot SA 
6LV 88é 
tel EGT SA 
Esl GGI SA 
Gol TOT 84 
Tor OGT SA 
SL V L8€ 
Ost 6TT 84 
LLY 98¢ 
¢ 9OLV SIT SA 
TOL V CSE 
guy t8E 


IITA 41039 Jo puny 





o'3r | Sse 
SI'Ir | z8¢ 
LVIy | 18¢ 
9T'IF | o8¢ 
GIy | 628 
cl'lp | gue 
el'lh | LLg 
sI°ty | gone 
IL'Ih | a2e 
Ol'Ir | FE 
6'Ir | e2¢ 
Sty | 32g 
Ly | Le 
9°Ir | OLE 


14* 


Conspectus of Text-Units 














212 



































x 6s | (018) Bese dB OLT 1°98 eu%s | (Prett)ztesr |: | ¢9¢ LUFF ZI 
x Tr6g | (PX TS) Qe CEE pant 9°98 eies 4 (etatr) evegr. | a9 LUFF LIP 
x O16e | (aere‘pos)poaves | 2qQU ODT $98 | I1%8 BEA} : | goa | otey | ote 
x g'6e  |(po0s‘oez)qures‘eges| FLT ‘ELT §°98 6°38 (Get) PI2st | * | ~ 299 Cl’ tF 60F 
x L'68 (46L)PZEE {|TRSLT‘GUTLT| 6I°es ear (S PID IVISL |. ° T9¢ Flt? 80P 
x | 68 (8 61) 9 BEE qv oLI Sieg GZS (QPIT) GEIST | * 19 SI FP LOF 
x V6E | ((VOS) PIEES UELAT'PAGAT, FBES Szs | (9SIDIrest| * |- 099 Cli tF 90F 
x F ‘68 (P62) EE |PATLZTPIOLT| TZ ‘9T'es| 2°28 (SPI) ORIEL | * 69¢ Ll FP COP 
x CE'8g SOT ore 1% OLT ores LUIS «| (UPIT) eet | * 6S¢ 8° th TOF 
x | &g'gg Pol Ks P 69T Ores be" 50 ae ; gee L' $F SOF 
> gecab Niche grids ig Sh ANY Ane . &. pee BY yas reeb + 
x ZE'SE Ph bot Pp? 691 8:08 BS pole aa Lge 9°TP 10F 
x 0€'8E (P82) 1 BEE q? 691 9°¢8 TTI Poly Msg : Lee Gtr 00F 
x 62'8E (0 82) B EE Pp S9L ecg IT'I8 (IVITT) -a'eet t * 9g¢ t'tF 668 
x scse. | (P9282) qBZzE q% gor ceg Il'Ts eC er ee ee) 9c¢ | Ft? 868 
: xX A109 
2 snd ng ea a Se ne er RAT nae ae vie 
x ZS ‘1ESL'PeLL) 1g¢| .PO2L9T GZE Clg FAI P6 LIT LZI 9ZT SA 
x se St a £28 a (0ST) Set G6 911 961 GBI 8A 
x Ose Aae LL) P 2 OE q? LOT FIPS ee | Cato r) 9762 : oce | PL’ SP 96¢ 
x 98E° |(9L)G% OES ‘P? 6ZE 991 | ¢8°e8 E108 (16h) - 2°62 64S | StF C6 
x r'8¢ (po ah) 1¥62E | PQ GOI 13°§8 TI08 (CV'st) 162 Spo | SCOTT Sh F6E 
x T:88 | Soha ee. Rasy: 02'¢8 OT'OS | FT'S8h) UI09}0q By} SPS ITSP E68 
- aan e 1gd) (C¥ Gx) PI gQZE v COT 618 | GOS |(FT'SF) at0x30q gyl  * LEG OL er ZOE 
x mo3qog.26 d| (pa 2) G¥ 8ZE po Por S1'es LOS |(ET'Sr) moyyoq gr} * L¥o |} SF 16¢ 
x | w103404 2¢ “d a (8 pyr G18 L'08 (GE'S) MOOG gz! * LES 6° SF 06 
XJ 41039 
1 4g - Tay 103 I tq Lids “UH |WIN] Ids Vig | -ourysuovey 





213 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


HW KKK 


A 








Ce 6E 
Ta 6E 
TG 68 
LY'68 
9T'6E 


Cl 6 


(> 88) & ZFS 
(ogg) Pate fp | 


| (Vege) porte | 


(gs ‘pozrg)9qeTPE 


| (4% 18) PI 0S 
| (p98) 4 0F¢ 
| (998) Fore 
| (4% 98) P® 6gE 
(p9¢8) 4 ® 6&E | 


(q& cg) po gE 


eee 





(q G8 ‘p Fs) P‘q8eeE 
(p> $8) TB gee 
| @ ¥8) PLES 
| (vpg‘pogg)oqeres 
| (BFS) 928 





(4% 68 ‘p2zg) 9¢¢ 





(q cg) pase 
(q % 38) Po GEE 








T6T 
qd? O6T 
P? 06L 
6ST “1% 88t 
PISST 
LST 


981 
P 2 Sst 
qe CgtT 
P24 P8T 
B FST ‘PISsl 
PXQIST 
q Sst 
CST 
v Ist 
P? OST 
Pp “4% OST 
6LT 
P? SLT 


4 SLT 


| PSLT POLLT 


qe rLt 


P 9LT 
P®QOLT 








GT'88 
6°88 
8°88 
688 
688 

T@L8 

1e7L8 


ST'L8 
8TL8 
9T°L8 
cT'L8 
€1'L8 
6EL8 
9°18 
§7L8 
1G 98 
06°98 
61°98 
8T'98 
L198 


GI'98 
968 


698 


T1°98 


6°98 
8°98 








ITS 
FIs 
Sus 

GTS “STO 
TIS 


OFS 


OFS 3% 


678 
Lt8 
1@7E8 
€1'€8 
@&8 
CG G8 
T@68 
0GCS 
06°68 


88 
STE 
C168 
PEs 


eles 
S188 








(Il'6F) 6°62 
(O1'6r) 8°62 
(O1'6r) 8°62 
(S'6h) 1°62 
(s°6r) 2°62 


(CT'STT) SISt 
(FI'SII) LTst 
(FUELT) LTet 
(1°Stt) 9'ISt 
(SI°STT) OTST 


| (S°STT) 21°62T | 


(IT'eTL) Ss Tet 
(6°ST1) 21621 


| (S°SIT) 9L°6ST 


(L°ST1) 9V'6ST 


(Gt'°STI) ST'ZSt 
(GI°STT) ST'SEl 














L°9P LEP 
L’9F 9EP 
9°97 . SSP 
G°9P VEEP 
Vv 9P SV 
as GEV 
$ OF IéP 
1X 41079 jo pug 
¢'9F O&V 
29 66F 
1° 9F 86P 
LTS? LGV 
9T oF 9GF 
Fe CoP 
vT oP PGP 
el cP €6P 
Il’ ePp CCP 
Tl’ St léP 
6° SP OCP 
6° SP 61P 
8° cP SIF 
[TX 41039 
L°oP LTV 
Sct LGT SA 
> oP 9TP 
> SP 8S 
X A10Yg Jo pun 
6 oP VIP 
1° cP ClP 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


214 


ia 


TEL V 
T8 
G6LV 
VoL V 
-€8 
PILV 
GIL V 
TIL V 
OTOL V 
écl'OL V 
1TOL V 
TOL V 


6'0F 
8'OF ‘J? 
SOF “J? 
SOP 
L’OF 


(TSI) 068 


eee 


(4% 6) Po CHE 


(p29 16) 4% eFE 


({¥ 16 ‘P906) FFE 


(1% 06) P? SFE 
(P268) 1¥ EFE 
(4% 06 ‘P 2 68) SFE JO 
(q % 06 ‘Pp 9 68) SFE JO 
(9 68) & SFE 


(4 68) P ate 


(2 68) 9 SFE 





(e 68 ‘PI88)IqVsPE 











I §Xf 


12 T0% ‘P2900 


24% 002 ‘661 


oq % 86T 
P.? 961 
° 4% 96T 


q* g6r 


P F6I 
24 F61 
P24 F6T ‘9 
P24 F6I ‘f 
q $61 
e T6I 
24% S61 
P 6 
P? 36T 
P? 61 J 


+ 6 = “+e 


12% Gol 


Jog 








L00T 
99¢ 
TOOT 


6E 
F196 
1°96 
€1°96 
TI96 
6°96 
8°96 
8°96 


G96 
96 
6°96 
696 
GT'S6 
9°¢6 


Go F6 

03 €6 
03° F6 ‘S2'S6 

€6°E6 


03°S6 *6°Z6 


8°36 
£°C6 


THe 





8T'86 
GT'86 


G6 ‘TT'S6 
O16 
OT'S6 
LV'T6 
FIT6 
IT'I6 

6°16 


816 
L°T6 
L'T6 
9°T6 
8T°06 
6°06 
ST'68 
02°88 
03°88 
02°68 
8T'ss 
€T'88 
6°88 
L’88 


I 1dg 





(8t'9¢) 6'F8 


(6°99) L'F8 
(6°99) LF8 


(¢°9¢) Z2°E8 
(Z°9&) TZ'€8 
(1'9¢) 02'€8 
(219) 91°S8 
(T1'¢¢) eT'¢s 
(OT'S¢) FI'E8 


(Z'0¢) 31°62 
(10g) — 
(T°0¢) “Jo 

(GI°6F) IT'6L 
(ST'6F) IT'6L 
(FI'6r) — 

(ever) — 
(ZI'6F) OT'6L 


(Z1'6F) OTOL 





Il H 





‘ 809 1°06 V 
; oo Cet 
i LO9 68 V 
: 109 sen 
‘ O0GT 661 
; €09 Tes v 
i £09 T'68 V 
; €09 T28 V 
; G09 f° Is Vv 
: TO9 6°18 V 
: 009 TIsv 
; 009 Tis Vv 
; 66¢ T° LP 
; a 3 LI OF 
; 86¢ LI 9 
86g 91° OF 
; L64 GI °9F 
; L63 SL oF 
L6¢ Gl OF 
5 we ZL OF 
: 96¢ TT 9 
; ae OL‘ OF 
; ats 6° OF 
; 96¢ 8° 9F 
ILN | Id$ | Ib 








ocP 


XI Atoyg Jo pug 











Top 
OSF 
67h 
Str 
LY 
9b 
CPP 
FPP 
SbP 
Oe 
TP 


J voy 
~OnIJSuUODIY 


215 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


s nw . nw ow 


noo 


oe 


nx KK 


L6 
LLY’ 
96 ‘C6 

696—C6'P 


$6 
éLe, ¥ 

26 
SEL V 
16 ‘06 
68 
8s 


18 ‘98 ‘¢8 
€rLV 
Tey 

CEL Vy ~ 
Ge, V 





(TST) 068 P| 


P® (L0T) 90 


1 ¥ G0G 
P 106 
2 106 





PLE 
ELE 
€o0T 
GLE 
Teor 
TLE 
TE"T0r 
OLE 
Lo Tor 
69€ 
To Tor 
poq 198 ‘Ve gog 
GE Ior 
GT IOL Ff 
OT TOT 
6'TOT 
COE 
€or 


H9E 
ZOE 
69E 
098 
gee 
Log 
TL‘OOT 
OT00T 
6'00T 
L00T 








P8E 
PIOOT 
€8& 


S00T 

T8¢ 

Toot 
T1066 


61°66 J? 


(31°99) 


O1'F8 


Pot 
ot 
66 V 
TST 
86 ¥ 
OST 
L6 V 
6FT 
96 V 
StI 
c6V 
LVI 
76 V 
9FT 
6 66 V 
T'&6V 
er 
66 V 
ina’ 
€vt 
Ort 
661 
Sét 
LET 
9¢T 
Losey. 
T6V 
€°06 V 
6°06 V 


CPT SA 
TPT SA 
PLP 
EFT SA 
(¢1F) 
SPT SA 
LP 
TPT SA 
LF 
OFT SA 
OLF 
GET SA 
69F 
SET SA 
89F 
(194) 
LRT SA 
99F 
Og] SA 
CRT sa 
FET SA 
GET SA 
SET SA 
Ter sa 
OST SA 
cor 
FOF 
S9F 
Z9P 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


216. 














€6P 














f to ‘ci namast cts tee | ergot ercot Beak | ; Ar tes 
; ve (FIT) LO P2602 61°S0T IZ LOT Panes P. 6&9 LOL V Z6P. 
| ILX Atoyg Jo pug 
x StUIIX (gtt)99¢ | 860% ‘Ps0e) 9T'8OT | GT'TOT (2: ‘a uso | SOG 16% 
x 6 11X Pp? (@r1) ¢9¢ 94806 | SI'sOT | ST'IOL . | : 169° | «oto | O6t 
x 6IIX | 24 (ZIT) ¢9¢g 7 480z J FT'SOT an *s ; ee ee | #9 | G68P 
x 6IIX | 94% (@TT) a9¢ ® 805 FI'801 cc ks | “$e 1 2) 88. 
x 81x Pp? (ITT) F9E P2102 E801 8'TOT ™” 199 | «88'S | L8P 
x LIX | 2q9%(ITI)F9E | GP 204 ITSO L tor 999 | ~S85ge | 98P 
x 9°11X pisos hE ypeteng 01801 Ps * | 969 | sexe "| 98F 
x PIIX | P24 (OTI) E9¢ 1B 90% 8801 9° TOT ' goo | «(Oa ec (| «(FSF 
x 11x a‘e(olt)s9e | p2c0s | 9'80T ¢' TOT Band i , ro9 | «6Tgo «| «88h 
x VIX | 4 (OTT) £9 qvcoe | 9°80T SLOT " | #99 | 61'E¢ 38 
£1049 | | 1TX A104 
x GL V Fs dae om AEA F80T | T'TOT ab E99 901 V | SF 
x 00T PP? (60T) s9E $06 E8¢ 988 + OTT LET Oot | I¢etsa 
X | p-Ggyge'sry| 94 & (GOT) 39 ® FOZ T'80r | Toor a Gy? 0¢9 cOlLV | O8¢ 
' 66 ed ea 4 Ro laces SOF kOe 6st | ogrsa 
ms fg | SS°L0T es an POT VW | (62%) 
ere = 18& ue Me 601 9gI Scl GPT SA 
TA sete erent aug ; 949 SOlLV | 82F 
Se 2 aaa % Lue Gge * 2ot | (gL sa) 
x 92V sane “ss sss | orzor OTOL | ST ‘SOOT ihe 69 ZOLV | LLP 
x 6 | : siohe : 91 a vin ae : care 9cI JPL SA 
° eee ee e ° . | FIL°SOL . . oe . . ° LOT Vv (92%) 
gt e cae ee SES ws i LOT | $8I CGT OPT SA 
; rear Tae | 1VZOT et Or9 OOI'V | GLP 
oti : ; ie | ; abs | T non a 
I1V 149 I 8X 199 | I ud Tid Il H IGN} TI.ag ID | -onsnos0y 




















a 


217 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


A 


4 


HWW KOM KD 


ia 


nw 


. . . . 





Pp? (LIT) OLE 


tee ry 


-. e+e 


9qe (LTT) OLE 
4 2® (ATT) OLG 7? 


Pp» (9TT) 69 
9 q¥ (9TT) 698 


« i oe ws 


(CLI) 898 





owe 9. (8 ie 


(FIT) L9¢ J 








6 OFT 
SOFT 
£ Ott 
9°OTT 
FOr 
SOET 
Go 60T 
€¢:60T 
TG'60T 
02 60T 
61°60! 
9T'60T 
FE60T 
ST 60T 
él 60r 
TT 60F 


6601 
686 
9601 





6 SOT 

Tor 
Sa FOL 
Ge Tor 
6G FOL 
Ge POT 
Te FOL 
El VOT 
TE'FOr 
TE VvOr 
TI'POr 

L'¥0F 


9T sor 
FTSor 


966 
TT sot 

















OIL V 
LOT 
TG FG 
99T 
601 V 
Sot 
FOr 
€l'rs 
e9t 
oot 
S0T V 
TOT 








| 


r1¢ 
erg 
319 
TI¢ 
O1g 
608 

(g0¢) 
10¢ 
90¢ 
cog 
F0g 
s0¢ 
Zoe 
10g 
00g 
66F 


Ix At0yg 


S6F 
SGT SA 
LOP 
LGT SA 
96F 
QGT SA 
ee] SA 
(c6P) 
(FET SA) 
(EGT sa) 
(F6P) 
GGT SA 


Conspectus of Text-Units 








x OMLE “a (een) SLE | v OgZ 
E e'iy Sys me ke 
e ie Me | ia pe 
x QLT BaSe Bie P ¥E3 
x ELF qB (GST) SLE 2 $83 
: aoe be) wee ect 
in air wecue ten pene 
x ZOr (Fa) Le 

: “ae a S54 

. bviy hd ee ay 

x 39% | 0 a B (oat) ELE a3 a) 988 
2 ratey eee 

x 1Z9F ZAI 1B GZs J 
x 61'9F ® (OZT) S2¢ q B 6ZG 
x LT 9F Po (611) LE FZS 

x 9T9F | 24% (6TT) Lg P2833 
x Cl'9F Po (SI1) TLE BLS 

e sitee Prati s 
€ 61-59 re a 
x €l'9F P (STT) TL q & E23 
x TL9F Traiyoe 12% 

x OU9F , ; po 8 08 
E: Safpeee De aie 
x 8'9F q (SIT) T1¢g G° 61S 
x 9'9F V(SIT) ILE |€ OSS ‘P28TS 
x 9°99 i A ae G*¥ SIZ 
liv | 1 49 I 8M 1°S 








Sort 
EC TIT 
GG TIT 
Oe TIT 
SITtt 
STITT 


SLITT 
£66 
GE TIT 
EPTtr 
6 TTT 


S TIT 
Ltt 
O TTT 
LET 
Fe Orr 
02° OIT 
Oa OTT 
6 OTT 
STOTT 
POUT 
Gt orr 
OLVOTT 
OFOTT 

















6°L0T (er WIT) ¢ “esl 00L e219 
SLOT ; 00L G*LG 
9LOT | (FIPTT) gest 669 €°LG 
C101 (EU'FTI) PSS ; 869 ILS 
$°L0T (EL'FIT) Sel 169 619 
SLOT Yaad, Sarg 169 61°9¢ 
re ee tr ake seis 
90% (6-AI) OF'AI | GIT raat 89I 
see re Naat Naf in ese 
G°90T i A | 169 EI 9¢ 
P90 ER oc 169 Z1'9¢ 
$°90T geen. e | 069 
1901 Sain gee 069 IT'9¢ 
E2°COT eg® ate 689 IT'9¢ 
ren Rie aS? ve oeeli 
STSOT pe a 889 69 
LVGOT pie mite 189 8°99 
en ee : ade eG 
EL'COT Wie 989 9°9¢ 
ET'COT eee 989 9°9¢ 
olcOT oes G39 7'9¢ 
TL'SOT ay Witte 789 ¢°9¢ 
om Voie ot “a6 
ecOT eae €89 g°9¢ 
r'cOr ee aaa ¢89 2°99 
¢°COT ee tie €89 1°9¢ 
rid. ce lH | IDN | Ids nv 








6g¢ 
8Ee 
Les 
9¢¢ 
GEG 
rEg 

ATX 41099 
EGC 
6G SA 
ZEG 
1g 
0g¢ 


I uo0ly 
-dnIysuodaIy 


219 


Conspectus of Text-Units 











a 


. 


éP (S&T) 18¢ “Jo 


P? (831) I8¢ 


qe (121) 088 ‘po (G2) 918 


eee er 6 


9q%(ezt) 9L¢ 


(ZZL) GLE 
(131) FLE 


P? (031) $28 
24% (QZ1) 


ous te 


P? (96T) LE 
94% (9ZT) 6LE 


| P 2 (G21) 8Lg 


P 2 (6T) 28E 


GB (621) 28 


1¥ (8ZT) IS 


ELE J 


GES TEs 
P 0&G 


. 


P24 08 
% OS ‘P 623 
623 
BBG ‘LES 
93% 
qe LES 





OL Pvtt 
TOV 
9VIT 
EEL 
60P 
866 
ST Ett 
L6E 
VISIT 
96§ 
OWSTT 
OLSttT 


S'stt 


9ETT 
9'ETT 
ETT 
VSlt 
estt 
Vert 
9TGIT 
PEOrt 
FIGlt 


GLGET 
IVett 
OVGIT 

6 CTT 








6'°8OT 

60P 

“sot 
666 LOT 


02° 90T 
61 90T 


6E'90T 
LT90T 
9T'90T 
PI'90T 

L90T 

L901 
6TLOT 


STLOT 
LV LOT 
9TLOT 
ST LOT 





($°GTT) 8°cST 
(@°SIT) 8°ZeT 
(I'SIT) 13st 


| (9t'pTT) gaet | 























LILY 19¢ 
GLI POT SA 
9ILV 09¢ 
9ITV (6¢¢) 
FLT GQ] SA 
1LT SOT SA 
€ILV gee 
OLT T9T SA 
GIL V LGG 
69T O9T SA 
Th 9g 
TIL V gcc 
TTX At0}¥g Jo pugy 
FITS PG 
PI'S¢ EGG 
EI 8¢ oa¢ 
Z1'°8e (T¢¢) 
IT ‘8g 0g¢ 
6° 8g 6TS 
L'8¢ SPS 
GT'Le LPS 
SI LG 9F¢ 
IT 2L¢ Cr 
IT‘ Le PFE 
AIX Atoyg Jo pugy 
6° LE St¢ 
g°L¢ ZPS 
8° Lg It 
9°L¢ OFS 





na 
— 
om 
=} 
e 
cee 
4 
o 
a 
al 
° 
mM 
= 
os 
2 
o 
~ 
2 
a 
2 
oO 


220 















































os SOT aay at es eaamaan ve bara nae | ein : soa OLT | 991 SA 

% ie ee Rees noe oa a: ae slants se6 
secre OSS 6911 SOIT Pt} 1¢2 SILT V | Ese 

AX Ax0yg Jo pug 
x CB'Cy. a Re eer ee 8h% 9°9TT 9 OTT ee GL | 8719..). 889 

x es6r | (oer) ss¢ LYS 60F VIP aghe: -¥eL -| @t°t9 | Sores 

= ZE'6F (—) puss P OF S OTT S'Orl = 7 aes 8t'09 | IT8¢ 
x 1€°6F (—) p> 188 9 8 OFZ imal ZOU ne TEL 11°09 (089 
, ie me aie Pars | PBcIt | gz°60r ey eeh 110968 
; a pisid WEY te Wess |) ee eit fT eee‘r bad. Seg, 91°09 81g 
x | 63°6F ‘> “st ThST @ GPZ'Jo TBSTl | . Te°e0r | at ZeL | St'09 LLG 
x 66'6P (—) q% 286 Cts OZ'SIT 13°60T i ah eo RL td Eee 9LG 
x | 92°6T (—) p? 988 pT GUGIT | 9T'60T | ae >? TEL 71°09. | «GL 
x G66 ie v PFT FUGII | Qt6ot Vag : Tez | sf°09 PLS 
x F2'6F TGR S.2'* q U FFE PVGIL | FIGOT + 122 1 gr'09. | S26 
x eer | (—) qe 988 Shs SISIT | SI60r ocz | Tr'09 GL 
x CE OY Ie PTS Te: ZUG 92 FTL 2601 aki: 6ZL 01°09 IL¢ 
3 Teor | (—)pogse 13 a a ae he. 1 Ferne A’ One 
x rer |(—) Ve ase ‘PPE OFZ PSOFIL | BS'R0I aad 6s. |  ¢°09 69¢ 
oe ai | sce ofa ae Oe sae iy: ian a aa 
x 216 (—)2 4 78¢ P 6k ESPIE | Te'sor : SZL P09. L9G: 
x orer \(—)¥ tse ‘Pogse] 1% 6EzZ 1SPIT | 02°80I ia C1 2°09 99¢ 
x 66F | (—)°q% E8E p> 88% OSFIT | ST'SOT hae 931 T09 | ¢9¢ 
x sor |(—)o9qeese 7] qeese 6I'FIT | SIsot 93279} 1°09 F9e 
x L6F hh os ta eas ZU =| IT'80T to 96L J) 769 g9¢ 
x L'6F P? LE SL PIT | T180l ante 931 eZ "6S Z9¢ 

| (AX 42049 

| ) 
rxy | 4g 18x 109 Lig | T1dg | IH | II N | Te. 4 WERT“) aetcteeees 





221 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


| 


HK WH KK YM 


a 





Satu ‘OGL 'd 
16 V 


SIT SA ‘806 
L106 V 


T'06 V 
etl 
ett ‘f 

L’06V ‘e'68V 

l'68 V 





(ZET) TEE 109F% 
P (ZT) 168 
2 (ET) 168 


or in: Corrs 


ea(cet ies 


(é q] & (er) Teg 
® (ZE1) T6E 


ene 2. 


£(0 36) B OFE 





[ees -J2] 





CTP 
OG OTT 
GEOL 

OF 

6 OTT 








SPIT 
LYVtt 
CoP 


9TEIL 


TGP 
CoV 
eVetT 


EGC “SSUL*QUIR]T 


MG 
i a! 
aSstt 
Gell 





(r6¢) — 
(O1'8¢) 1'98 
(¢81) 991 


(9°8¢) 06'¢8 
(81) SOT 
(S21) TOT 
(y'2S) Teg 

(121) O9T 
(S1°9¢) ZT'F8 
(FL'9¢) TI'FS 
($T'9¢) OL'F8 














9° 


rt aslo 


69 


uoydofoy 
76g 
LLT SA 
QLT SA 
e6¢ 
(G11 SA) 
FLY SA 
ELT SA 
Z6G 
GLT SA 
T6¢ 
06g 
68¢ 
ggg 
ILT SA 
18¢ 
(OLT SA) 
691 SA 
98¢ 
SOT SA 
LOT SA 
ge 


Conspectus of Text-Units 




















| (O18) TIBET 











SI 66 V's Soe as te P69 OI sa $'t r6L fF SA Gs 
LI O1'86 V q & (%) G6g L9 13°83 GP (OT'8%) OBIT $6 1z°¢9 3 
FI o'86 V ‘gear p2q 99 0Z'83T 13° (6°83) O3'TI ; G6 0z°¢9 $Z 
I e86V | 94% (F) G68 qe 99 61ST 12's (8°83) GI'TT ; COL 02°49 BS 
< Leen eral eer i wn ee ain ‘Piiercale oe Site re 
ie vA v (F) G6 poag LI'83l 61'S (¥°8c) FUIT G6 8T°¢9 0Z 
eT 9°86 V Pep iPad qe cg OL'Sal It's (¢°83) PUTT 162 LT“99 6T 
CL '86°L6V cee fer ats ee @'Scl eee vt ohe aoa Py O62 cI "eg SI 
9T ‘21 | 6S6V | p24 (g) F6E eMiez: 9°83 O's he Plat ; 06L g°a9 LI 
eT Ooi a) ae eres ssciepae E Beat re oe ew ; aby nt dr 
IT tnt A I 214s L 8 (98) 93 Z rd "d Z SA 
II 96 V vy C ie B C9 Lat 9°¢ (6°22) OF IT ‘ 982 €°S9 at 
OT G1'c6 V | q 2 (¢) F6S 9 96131 9°¢ (8°23) OT TT ; 981 Z°o9 I 
OT ye 2 OR ia Pp» ¢9 TILST IZ (LZ) FIT : G8 91° t9 ‘$I 
6 6°S6 ¥ ; : qB gg 6 LET 06'S (8°) OT'OT PSL Cl F9 ral 
6 8'°c6 V TS ¢ SUE FS ae 6'LET 61'S i PSL FI F9 IT 
8 ¢°¢6 V P 9 (3) $68 29 FO 9GF oe Meese yere- roi.” €82 ST t9 OT 
8 €o6 V 24% (3) g6E 19 E3951 QZ (2°91) 8T’9 28 ZI’ F9 6 
L POON 48 yee ys P2409 0Z'9BI VG (OTST) L1°9 : 28h LI #9 8 
9 8't6 V qe}. TS qv 09 SL'9aT 9T'T (2°eT) 39 ; 082 6°F9 L 
g VT6V RRA 7 6g ZL'9SI SIT (LT) 19 6LL 9°F9 9 
¥ E16 V po q(t) 26¢ po ge ZL9ZT Stl (LPT) 219 SLL 9°F9 ¢ 
¥ 276 V 2 (T) 368 q8¢ 9°92T 9°T (FFT) ¥9 SLL G'F9 7 
¥ VreV | @ (T) 268 ~BgG 9°9Z1 91 (rPI) F9 SLL o' $9 g 
¢ a oe eens = C°9ZI qT (e#1) ¢9 ; a) 7°49 z 
j T aio: a T T at I T I [ SA 
I 26 V : 191 VT Rik peer TLL 1° t9 T 
Il tv I Ag II §¥ II °S Wtq |- Widg IH IN| IIds TU (Seaearaeces 



































223 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


6 GE “JP 
GS 


6G 





OlSOT V 
é8° EOL VJ? 


8°sOl V 
S’sOl V 
v'eort V 
TSot V 
G60 V 
Volt V 
) 


6. TOL V 
PUTOT V 
L’tol V 
GTtOr V 
Ve LULSY 
6100 V 
TTOL V 
9 
g 
¥ 


§ 
9001 V 
FOOr V 
£001 V 
6 O00T V 
6001 V 
TO0r V 


- sa6 





e ee 


(¢) 96 


*-. 


Pp? (4) 6E 





VOL 
q% OL ‘69 
q 89 


o- 





66 O€I 
OZ O8T 
6T OST 
ST'OST 
9T OST 
TT Ost 
OT'OEST 
90ST 
9 0ET 
06 
TOet 
Of 66T 
ve 661 
€6 661 
6661 
T6661 
To 66T 
oT 
GT 
Lai 
él 
6 661 
T'66T 
66°8eT 
8e'8el 
LO 8Gl 
Cosel 
F286F 





GEL 
GEL 
TEL 
GL 
SL 
PL 
CL 
619 
619 
TG 
v9 
Or'9 
69 
9 
66'S 
669 
Gag 








(T'98) LUFT 
(€°98) STF “p 
(F'98) ST'PI 
(€°98) LIFT 

(orce) 9UFT 


(OLS) OT FT 
(G¢8) FIFE (2'F8) 12°81 
(I'PE) 13ST 
(O1'Sg) OBST 
(6°S8) GT'ST 
(11g) g°2t 


ots 6 7. 


(6°08) L°3T 
(80g) 9ST 
(Tg) 68 
(6¢) 8& 
(6%) 28 


(6g) — 
(016%) FSI 
(O1'6%) FSI 
(F°63) SSI 


ore ore 


(¢°6Z) T'S 
(3°6%) Go TT 











GES 0} 90u 
GES 9} HOU 
068 





PT’ 89 
él’ 89 
TT°89 
01°89 
6°89 
8°89 
L389 
¢°89 
¢°89 
oF 
1°89 
63° L9 
02° L9 
6T L9 
6T°L9 
8T°L9 
8ST" L9 








67 
St 
LY 
9F 
cr 
FP 
eh 
GP 
TV 
} SA 
OF 
6& 
8¢ 
LE 
9¢ 
c¢ 


VE 
g SA 


GSA 
f SA 
6& 
§ SA 
GE 
Té 
0€ 
63 
86 
LG 
96 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


224 











TT’Sst 


| § (ores) tres. 1 























64 601 V ~~ 4°92 — lecterscosr PEG ‘S'S | Lree) sets S| 6¢S $°TL 
LY 9T in? } ae 0g re (16) 29 0% ZS 3E 
SF LT | a he oT i 63 Sg (26) 89 6T IZ Tg 
é9F ‘Gh =80L ¥ : ~<a EXP ZSISL 116 (L'¥S) 13°TS ; 8g8 GS °OL 
. Te ee ae oo hes et ea Sas ee aT te ha 
; ; eg ape ent SIq T¢ 235 ek LT 6t 63 
iad aT cg If (06) 9'u‘te'd | oF ST 83 
° | ese = sq 6 : . » 7 * oF be el . FI oT 9% 
Lf}, } 1L0Tay Rs SISt 01's ey 3% ; =e" 02°69 
Se biraaee 2B nat ie ents ae ait 
CF SI z sd 63 (18) ¢9 ar eT he 
; eyic? fe is “f 6Z'0ST eg (S°E¢) FITS ; egg ao 
cope tee ree ee ne +> : ohek Han 89 
wor nae eet aes ig | Sa eae 3 6°69 
av © weet wa ee | « ise sis % | é (#9) OL'TS “J Il al ST 
aera Be So SLOST FL (FE) OL'TS ZE8 61°89 
a ¥ “ihe eats oo oe? oT 
; at ae i Ra (¢g) ¢9 Or IT GS 
- | 9-F BR 90T V" Sat . hy (¥8) 29 6 OT 61" 69 
ged 90rV's-TU90TY ae es , ae es Se aA 
Lg or poqeL . he (8) T9 6 aa 
9¢ | GOLV ay eo) a My (1°3¢) TIS : G8 Or 69 
cg 6 PPL CZ O8T ST) (¢¢) OF 8 8 IZ 
rE 8 a es a i (68) 99 eT eT 03 
€¢ TOLV oPL CZOST STL (C98) GUFT GSS ¢°69 
El'S0l V PE, EZ'OST LUL (2°98) 2UFT ; 128 eT’ 39 
III 4¥ {pag +4 II $y II 98 II td i 14s 1H IN| II d9 Th 



































yy uo 


| -2NL19SU0IEY 





225 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


2 SIL V 
Sit ‘SLItV 
SLIT V 
TLITV 
GS ‘BS ‘TS 
cT9OIl V 
STOTT V 
IV9TT V 
OV9TT V 
SOIT V 
COIL V 


o9TT V 


COLL V 
T9ITV 
EGIL V 
6 SIT V 
Vctt V 
CFIT V 
06 
TPIT V 
61 
SIT ‘ZIV 
9TITLV 
STII V 
aT TETy 
ZOITV 


VOIry | 


é% (6) LOF 
(a=) FO0F 


P2(8) 668 
2q ® (8) 668 


(2) 96 ‘J9 


(1) 868 
P 2 (9) 268 
q% (9) 168 


zs 6 


(p2 ¢) Pp 2 96g “J2 


eee m (oe 


p2(¢) 968 


Z8 
PTS 

2q¥ Tg ‘pr20g 
P26L 

qe%6L ‘PSL 


"QOS 


9 62 
q® 8h 
PLL 
QLL 
VLL 


ee oe 


P99L 


4192 








cTVET 
6 PEt 
6 VET 
oret 
v'rEr 
e ret 
TFSI 
Co'Sst 
Gasset 
Fa Set 
6 eet 
ST Sst 
erest 
TTesét 
TTSeét 
TS°cET 
6G'6ET 
96°CEL 
Fo GEt 
GF 
VOGEt 
8é 
6Tosl 


6TSéT 
STost 
LYVGET 
9T°SST 
Clost 


| 


OFT 
9°FT 
61ST 
cTst 
ET'ST 
ITST 
OTST 
rer | 
SGGI 
TZST 
OTST 
6ST 
got 
Vor 
Sa TT 
26. 911 
FIT 
git 
U'It 
6F 


f 
\ 


(9°09) 9T'F% 
(O1'6&) ITF 


ee 


(O1'6S) OL'FS 
(8°69) 6°F% 


(O1'8G) TFS 
(O1'8&) TFS 
(8G) LT°Ss 
(T'S) EIS 
(6°2&) SI°SS 
(6°L9) S182 
(6°29) S1°SS 
(1°LG) OSS 


}($2e) 1185 3 { 


(9°29) 6°&2 


&(@°LG) 6'E “F9 


(—) 9°82 


(G1s) 8°62 (IT'e¢) H1°2 


GG 


€L8 
GLE 0} Soul 


TL8 
OL8 
VG 

L98 


0G SL 
9T Sh 
FT Sh 
tI SL 
oT €L 
€ SL 
T’é2 
TSL 
G6 GL 
TZ°GL 
06° GL 
6T' GL 
SI SL 
91° GL 
9T GL 
FI GL 
Gl GL 
OT SL 
8°GL 
8é 
GGL 
LE 
02 TL 
c¢ 
6°TL 
S°TL 
LL 
Qutl 
QTL 


15 


Edgerton, Paficatantra. II. 


Conspectus of Text-Units 





€8 
68 


T8 
08 
6L 
8h 
LL 
92 


9L 


GL 
FL 
tL 
€L 
GL 
GL 
TL 
OL 
69 
89 
L9 


99 
G9 
¥9 


e19. 
TT9 


| ¢¢'09 
VS 
T¢'09 
62°09 
86°09 
13°09 "P 


¢Z'09 


€3°09 
6609 
02°09 
GT°09 
¢T'09 
6T'09 
TT'09 

6°09 

L°09 








09d 
109 °d 





OST ‘L'6IT V 


P6ITV 
V6IT V 








Ill 4V | ur 4g | 





bs) OE P? 86 WLS | PLT Pee 106 1Z°SL 60T 

(post) qe Tty |9q%g86 ‘P9O26|. SLET | TILT Ps ar4 : 106 O%°SL 801 
II 41049 

fhe hts eet vb rent an yh to ; age pee oe 
(ASI) Pa OTe Pos Aes eq 19 Seay wB | LB oF LZ 8A 

(21 ‘po. 91) QvoTr ‘G0F} 4% 16 ‘P29G| GT'9ElL rag (3°29) O'S ; 968 rT GL 901 

bok hats, ns ae fo a ee ; 968 ose Bae 

pee Palio. a 4 nts arg} sat ee ss he: 

(4% 9T) P® SOF q® 96 OL'9ST | IZ91 oe she aS g0T 

(VOT ‘GT ‘po FI) ‘ ; q a 5 : ; 

Saye G6 ‘P ¥6 gt Ae fines A als) (6°19) 6°S F68 IT'S ZOT 
(q¥ FT ‘p2 §T) 90F qt $6 ST'Sel Vor (8°19) 9°42 $68 q° oD TOT 
(4% eT) P2 GOF 6 IT'9ST | BOT (8'T9) 8°42 £68 PSL OOT 

(v gt ‘p9 BT) 94% COP €6 6°SST 13ST (1'T9) 1°e3 268 ¢ oh 66 
(qe at) po FOF P? 26 soet | 0z'¢T (1°19) L°9% BOG 4 ees Be 
j TI PL 16 

(@ ZT) 2 $0P 226 becet | 61'S Bway Bs ee El FL 96 
(p29 11) 4% FOF q® 36 g'eck 4° 2191 (s'T9) 9°92 168 Sl PL 6 

(—) 6° $0F eee ene Ae eG “lal ‘aiere erate . eee 6°?L 6 

(p9 OT) 9 SOP ‘D2 BOF Pq 16 o°Sel 6°ST (19) ¢°93 068 6°FL £6 
QU(IT) SOF | F16 ‘06 P68} LB PET Vet (e°19) $9 068 C'PL Z6 
qv (OT) 20F oq 68 OZ PSI | Za rT (3°19) $3 688 PPL 16 
J 41039 
po'(8) 107 98 1e'FEl LVF (1'19) 3°96 . 888 ou eyou} = 0G 
cg IZvEt | LIFT (01°09) 6T' FZ 988 VEEL 68 
qe (6) TOF +8 POLP SA | pogg sa (6°09) G13 ; 988 To°SL 88 
Sky so an aa ci: (281) 6FT &Z 9% | Fae 9% SA 
an = | a 
Ir 8x II og | I ta | Ir dg | IH | in| Ias | Tt ae eee 














| 

















227 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


90T 
got 
FOT 
€OT 
GOT 
TOT 
oot 
66 

86 


L6 
96 
c6 
¢6 
v6 
¥6 
¥6 
66 
66 
c6 
T6 
06 
68 


88 
18 
98 
g8 
¥8 








66°69 
66°69 
LOGI 
96°69 
F269 
T@e9 
61°39 
LVe9 
cVe 


Il'G9 
TT'69 
O1Ee9 
ooo 
69 
669 
T'69 
TS*19 
Te't9 
8a T9 
96'T9 
F219 
€at9 


To T9 
GS 
€T't9 
6°19 
LT9 








(93) (8 6IF ‘Po SIF 


(p29 GZ) & SIF 


((¥ G%) Pp? LIF 
(pq $3) 1B LIF ‘p 9IP 
(B $3 ‘p G3) 94 OIF 
(9¢%) e9OIF 
(1¢%) PTF 


(8% ‘p ZZ) 94 STP 
(P94 G3} BCTH ‘Pp PIF 


(8 22) FIP 


(Pp 13) I¥ FIP 
(1% 1z‘p20Z) ETP 


(0 0Z) ® STP Jo 


(qv 03 ‘6T) p2q ZF 
(961) ZIP 
(qv GT) PO LIF 





P2901 


Ge 90T 

P gor 

94 SO! 
ecO0l 


P° FOr 
q*% FOT 
Pp? SOT 
pq SOT} 
q ot 
BOI ‘P92 ZOT 
2q ZOT 

® ZO 

P TOL 
2 T0T 
qe TOL 


P Oot 
24 00T 
® OOF 
P° 66 
q® 66 





TTOPT 
9°OFT 
FP Orr 
6 OFT 
TOrT 

Vo 6ET 

6G 6ST 

LTV 6ET 

LY 6ET 


FT6Et 
ST 6ST 
66ST 


86ST 
66 8ST 
Test 
SIREt 
ol '8éT 
oVesst 
TTSét 
TISé1 
OlSéT 


8°8eT 
64 
VULET 
6 LET 
OLET 








TT'06 
8°06 
9°06 
C06 
06 
G06 
T'0G 

€6'6T 

0c'6T 


6T'6T 
ST 6T 
Ger 


VI'6T 
9'6T 
c6r 
G6T 
G 6T 
Go 6T 
T6r 
T6r 

66ST 


1e'8t 

él 
TS LT 
SILT 
GT LT 











coe eee 


(FLL) STE 


(ZLL) 9'FS 
(ZLL) 9'FE 
(T2122) SFE 


(LI'YL) FFE JO 


(IT'92) PFE 
(1°91) 61'S 
(g°91) 8T'E¢ 

(ST°Gz) ST's 

(sT’e2) Stes 

(ZT°G2) t'SE 

(ZI°GL) are 

(T1°¢h) IT'¢e 
(6°G2) O'S 


GG 


T66 
066 
616 
8T6 
816 
LI6 
LI6 
916 
916 


16 
FT6 
€16 
F616 
616 
TI6 
OT6 
606 
606 
806 
L06 
L06 
L06 


906 
8% 

€06 
606 
TO06 





easy) FEI 
ST LL SeT 
LL wh SSI 
GT LL gt 
PILL OST 
Clie GET 
SELL SaI 
OT LL Lat 
OL LL 931 
III 41039 Jo pug 
SLL Gal 
a) 7a 
as EZ 
8h 6% SA 
7" SAT 
PLL ca 
SLL OZT 
The 6IT 
PIL SII 
SOL LIT 
Il'9L 9IT 
TT '92L Cll 
O1'9L FIT 
III 41048 
6°9L SIT 
9F Bz SA 
c'9oL SLI 
v°9L aa 
€°92 OLI 


15* 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


228 





TS°E9 
66°€9 
61°S9 
LI'S9 
9T°S9 DUB LE 
LOE9 


96°E9 
€6'S9 
T2°E9 
L’$9 
¥'E9 
9°$9 
G $9 
T€9 
9¢°S9 
TE"S9 


II 49g 


(p2 gz) q 


(qv 0g ‘p26Z) BSF *J9 
(qe 6) po 


eee see 


(4 82) P O@F 
(8 83) 9 OZF 


eee eee 


(p2 2%) 4% OBF 


(q@ 22) PI GIF 


st 


TGP 


BoP 


PO LTT 
Qe Lit 
Perk 
OTT J 


eee eee 


eee eee 


SIT ‘Sit 
POTIT 
qeqir 
P2601 
Orr 
94% 60 ‘SOT 
LOT 


TT -Of 





OP 
Ig AP 
08 a 
90T toe 
TZ t8 
Cvrt 0% 
€o SFI T3'ES 
9 SFI 63 
i T3°GZ 
‘69 G8 
Teor 91°36 
9TGtT ITGS? 
Corl 6°33 
FIStl 8°SS 
Gl Gr L6G 
Sara at 9°SS 
BE ‘ITSP F9| 2 ‘9°SS ‘FO 
LPI SG 
ECVT ESS 
Ort IST@ 
TTVE £606 
USFL GT OFL|IS' 13° 21°03 
Te Ort 06°06 
ST Ort LT'06 
Il Ud 


| lI Ids | 


(01°89) 6°6% 
(921) L6 
(G21) 96 
($81) #6 
(FZ) &6 


(€°29) OT'S3 


(ZZT) 6 
(9°L9) T1°83 


eee eee 


oot sete 


(9°29) O1'8z 
(F°L9) 6°8z 


(F°L9) 6°83 
(F219) 6°8% ‘J9 
(6°99) #°8z 





FST 
Gg SA 
FE SA 
Eg sa 
ZE SA 
Tg Sa 
€¢cT 
oGT 
TOE 
Ost 
0g SA 
6FT 
Srl 
LPT 
9FT 
ctl 
mat 
€PT 
crt 
isa’ 
OFT 
6&T 
SET 
LET 
9€T 
get 


II 103g jo pug 


Z¥6 €°S8 
og | ge 19 
6z | ag 64 
che ie 
Lz | 08 69 
82 Ig Pa 
j Sir othe 
he ae RS 
926 91°62 
de as 
9% 63 19 
tid ie 
‘oy etki 
; ic: ree 
8z6 OI 62 
a Aas 
LZ6 86h 
la one; 
yi ok 
926 9I°SL 
926 GISL 
ae se, 
ef ere 
o%6 aan) 
GZ6'J9| OT'SL 
; $36 Ors, | 
| 1x | UI ds | Id 





II 401} 
-OnIjsu0dey] 





229 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


Tcl GV 
OgT TV 
SSL ‘SFT| SSL V PUroz'99 | (VTE 
LVT oS jo 
9PT q 8g “Jo 
aat reas 
SFT * 
cFT . 
9FT 8¢ 
isa! ce"s9 
orl LE 
OFT 92°99 
6ST C2'a9 
Sél €3°¢9 
LET T3°e9 
9ET 9T°¢9 
SST G$ 
cel 9¢ 
FET i 
Tet 
6st tS 
SZ |IT—T soury ‘gg sa 
LOT | ‘(2) ¢ soury ‘eg sa 
931 ; 
é§ OUull og sa 


car 


‘p2 08) Ear 


e 


86 
T9T 
L6 
96 
6IIST 


6 OFT 
6G OFT 
Te Ort 
OT OFT 
T6 
ol Ort 
06 
9°9FT 
88 
L8 
98 


QI'GZ 
GT'GZ 
PISS 

6'F3'02'SS 


(6°EL) L°3e 
(OFT) FIT 
(2T'ZL) T3'TS 
(CFT) SIT 
(PT) OTT 
(IFT) 60T 


(ZE'TL) FTE 


(IT'TL) FTE 
(STL) 9208 
(SST) LOT 
(Z'1L) LTO 
(FET) TOT 


(ZT) ZOT 


eee eee 


(EST) £0T 


eee oe 


eee . 


(11°69) 2°63 


cr6 


L8 

98 

g8 

TE’ 98 
€8 
$°98 
08 

6L 

SL 
Ores 
LL 
€°a8 
6°98 
6 G8 
Tas 
61 F8 
th 

61 ¢8 
“OL 
OT’ $8 
69 

89 

L9 

99 

g9 

$9 
L°G8 
€9 





GG SA 
Zo SA 
TG SA 
g9T 
OG SA 
rol 
6f SA 
QP sa 
LP SA 
OF SA 
E91 
cr SA 
Z9T 
T9T 
o9T 
6ST 
ger 
TT SA 
LST 
CP SA 
9GT 
GY SA 
TP sa 
OF SA 
6§¢ SA 
Rg SA 
LG SA 
Gct 
9g SA” 


Conspectus of Text-Units 





230 


9F 
29p SA ‘Jo 


(P2 Ts) qe Per | PqeOST 


i 4g | 





8¢cT 
96°S9L 
T’Sot 
Gol 
Lact 
Vat 
Sol 
Gol 
Tet 
92° FST 
Oat 
OTT 
cit 
ort 


90'SG1 


TIt 
LUPSt 
STT 
eT 7S! 
LTT 
9IT 
OIT 


oT est 





&6TT SA 
puUBst LE Jo 
Sit 
Ells 


LI ‘Z'0E 


| II td | 1 1ds | 


(SLT) OFT 
(S*AD 6°AI 
(—) 02 
(911) Set 
(xT) LET 
(FLT) 98 


(FID FI 
(GL) Set 
(TLT) SST 


(GULL) IL FS 


(OLT) GST 
(Z1°82) OSE 
(S91) OST 
(g'81) 9°48 
(L9T) 631 
(991) Sar 
(6°22 * 2 ‘S'PL) 
SI'S ‘SI'SS 











L9 69 SA 
cgOl : ELT 
99 €IT Bg SA 
SOT ; ZLT 
G9 801 19 SA 
+f LI 68 (TLT) 
+9 LOT 99 SA 
$9 101 Cg SA 
29 Oot T9 SA 
19 66 £9 SA 
LTOT $188 OLT 
86 (Z9 8A) 
09 6 T9 SA 
6¢ 96 09 SA 
ag 6 ope 
GOOLE | 92‘%S°L8} 69T 
rg $6 8g SA 
C66 LIL8 SOT 
rae 36 LG SA 
Z66 SI 18 LOT 
1g 16 gg SA 
IF 06 Cg SA 
0¢ 88 PG SA 
186 02°98 991 
J 104g Jo pug 
r N | Ids | Il t. {gumteee 











23 | 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


8 OSt V 
TOST V 
Ol'6ZT V 
L631 V 
$631 V 
L'63T ‘L°831 V 
$831 V 
T'83I V 
EVLelv 
IT231 V 
6 LEE V 
LL3TV 
OLELV 
9LETV 
QLZ1V 
E131 V 
VL3L V 
q Tg 
qT¢ 
rAGi 
&& 
BIg 
$921 V 
V9tl V 


Col V 


(2 $g) B LZF 


(4% FE) D2 ORF 
(p29 eg) 4% 9aF 


(2 ¢¢) B 92% Jo 
(q 9g) P GaP 


(egg ‘pogg) 94 BSP 


PST ‘P Sal 








GT L9T 
STL9T 
SLOT 
9° L9T 
9°S9T 
PG9oT 
6 GOT 
Se ror 
ee vor 
Te vor 
Of TOT 
62°P9T 
8e'Fr9T 
So T9T 
66 T9T 
Sa ror 
LO VOT 
2OT 
GOL 
Por 
£91 
or9or 
vv9or 


© V9I 
Ist 
O9T 


GlOF 
FOV 


LT°0& “J 


‘FLOP 
eg 


(9°F8) 61'S 
(IFS) E1°8e 
(Z1L°8) FI'SE 


(OT'S8) Z1°8 
(6°E8) IT’S 
(6°§8) I1'88 
($°¢8) O1'8E 
(2°€8) OT'8E 
(2°g8) 6°88 
(1°§8) 6°88 
(9°g8) 6°88 
(c°g8) 8°8¢ 
(681) TST 

(88) OST 


(6°8) IZLE 
(6°38) To'LE 


(G°Z8) 912 





990T 
e90T 
Pv90l 
901 
6901 
f90T 


O90T 
6S0T 
6S0T 
SGOT J 
. 8901 J 
SGOT J 
SgOT 
SGOT 
GL 


Fel 
Esl 


Il’ ¥6 
Ol #6 
OT'F6 ‘2°26 
TFT 
Est 
GSI 





€6T 
G6T 
T6T 
06T 
681 
Sst 
L8I 
98T 
cst 
Fst 
est 
o8T 
T8t 
OST 
6LT 
SLT 
LLT 
LL SA 
Q), SA 
G), SA 
FL SA 
GL SA 
9LT 
oLT 


Lt 


ZL SA 
TL 8A 


OL SA 





é S61 
S61 


c6T 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


cé6l 
c6rt 
Té6lr 
O6T 
68T 0} e}0u 
68T 0} e}0u 
681 
8st 


232 


Ill *V | tr Ag 


GOI So 
62 $9 


e°CET V 


VOslV 
Soest V 
T'Sst‘'s Tsl V 
TISt V 


Gost VY |\(P2 FE) (e Lar “Jo 


VOSt V 


(q L€) P 62F ‘Jo 


(q¥ 8 ‘P92§) O&F Jo 
(p2 98) 1¥ 63h 


(q¥ 9g) P? gzP 
(po ¢g) (® gzF 
(qe Gg) po LEF 
(p2 Fg) UB LaF 


Il SH 


ese eee 


9% 961 
Pod cer 


IIS 


ol'69I 
cT'69T 
LLT 

OT 69T 
9°69T 
G69T 
86891 
Fe sgl 
Te@'s9t 
To's9T 


LT'89T 
9T'89T 
PT'S9r 
€T'S9T 


9LT 
L’sot 


9°S9T 
osoT 
v's9ot 
FG LOT 
VG LOT 
6G LOT 
LV LOT 


° 


Thvd 


(CT°SP 39) 
ST SP 
LVS? 
3I'SP 
TTS? 
Ol'er 
CVGP 
FGF 
SL'SP 
OP 


| ids 


. “CLOT 


* — 1g90T “39 ‘TLOT 


: OLOT 
‘ OLOT 





: 690T 
: 890T 
; L9OT 
. L9OT 
: 990T 


LT Tor 
9T TOT 

OgT 
OT TOT 
Gc’ 101 
TOL 
€°10f 
6° O0T 
L° 00! 
LOOT 


9T 66 
GT 66 
FI’ 66 
€T 66 
LVT 
OFT 


T 66 


66°86 
GZ 86 
T3686 
8°86 





C1Z 
FIZ 
O8 SA 
IZ 
ZIG 
IZ 
O1Z 
60z 
(802) 
10% 
AI 41039 
90% 
G0z 
$0 
£03 
(62 SA) 
8?) SA 


0G 


10% 
00 
(661) 
861 
L6I 
961 
C61 
F6I 


IT wo 
-ONIGSUODNY, 


233 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


ecsl Vv 
gc SA 
pur egt y 


Lg 
L°Vét V 
GVEl V 
PPET V 


GVELV 
TVElv 
9¢ 
g¢ 


vg 
S'est V 
VSst V 
S Sel V 
GESt V 


(> 1+) ® FEF 
(4 Ib) P ger 


eee 


(Pp? OF) 4% eer 


(VF) 9 


(4% OF) Pp? ZeP 
(p9 6g) 4B ZEF 
Test V (1% 6¢ ‘Pp? gg) Ter 


(q 28) P6 


S&F 


GP Jo 


2 IST 
2qdP TST ‘POS 


. 


> 0€T 
q7*% 08 


. 


LST 
gst 
LEESI 
6 ILT 
VILT 
STLt 
VELt 
TTLT 
est 
TST 
O8T 
6LT 
9TOLT 
STOLT 
6EOLT 
TVOLtT 
6'OLT 


S°OLT 
GOLT 
FOLr 
Te 69T 
02°69T 
ST 69T 
91 69T 


TLT 
Cltr 
6°TF 
Sl ‘OFF 
9'FF 
QPP 


(F032) 


. ee 


GOT 


bL 


8°SOT 04 aj0u 
GOT 


I9T 
O9T 
6T POT 
LI FOr 
9T FOT 
cl For 
PI FOT 
FI FOr 
6¢T 
Sol 
LGT 
9cT 
T° For 
8I° Sor 
LT’ $0T 
LT’ SOT 
97. SOT. 
AT 410 
FI Sor 
LE*SOt 
9°cOT 
€°30r 
G COL 
61 TOL 
ST 10T 





88 SA 
VES 


1g 8A 


OR SA 
Cg SA 
Ges 
BES 
1&3 
0&Z 
62 
83S 
FS sa 
ER Sa 
(Zg sa) 
T8 SA 
LZ 
92 
G&S 
FUE 
a¢ 


18 JO Puy 


GGG 
Tee 
066 
61S 
SIG 
LIG 
9T% 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


234 





926 9 
GGG OG LET V | 
P66 OT LET V 
aad a 
e270 (LVL TYP 
GGG TELE Y 
066 S LET V 
122 °8TZ |TT'S'2gTV 
613 LET V 
STZ Let V 
LTZ@ Lusty 


91Z ‘FIZ | ULer‘oerv \(@ VP PIF) 94 FEF 








E13 rma 
Ste 19 
aed 09 
ate ‘* 
690% & SG sa 
60% 69 
80% es 
| 
Ill 1V li Ag 











uoydopop Catal see El'eLt 9°87 
P 2 (FP) 98F OFT 661 SSP 
ae en 6ST ‘8S ‘LEI 6°ELT ZG'LP 
"ep @ BEF 981 CELT GULF 
2 4 (FF) 9eP ‘Jo egy ‘fo S'ELT TULP 
P (Sh) CEP J | GST ‘FET “Jo g°SL,T SULP 
24% (sh) ogP yo Sel ‘yo | Se'sLT LLP 
94% (FP) 9EF Gel SEOLT oye 
P (Sh) SEF rE OS SLT ULP 
9 q% (et) cer est 6'SLI 8Z'9F 
(po Zt) J9FSh | PATEL SZ 'OLT GSO 
(qe 2p) POPEH | GR ZET LOGLE | 03°9F 
P Tel GZELT L'9F 
a halle € ae ne 
ao a ao Ei elie aa aes 
ee en 1.4 yaa net here 
ae Rae - Se 
hin Wee ad te an me 
ine Th eh: en et nestle ae 
pe See re hee me 
II §M II °S II Ud 1 14s 








(ET'h6) IZ'FF 
(6°66) 9T'FF 
(S'F6) STF 
(9°66) FFP 
($°F6) SL'FF 
(3°76) > — 
(Z'F6) ILFF 
(1'F6) OL FF 

(1'S6) 6°FF 

(@0'S6) StF 
(6°S6) OFF 
(802) 69T 
(¢7¢6) — 


eee see 


(20%) g9t 
(90%) LOT 
(6°36) $U'SF 


(¢0z) 99T 


IH 


e 

















sett 9° LOT | uoydojop 
ie ILI 96 SA 
OSLE T° LOT LVS 
O€Tt SI 901 OFZ 
6ZIT ¥ | ST°90r OFZ 
GZIT ‘J | LT 90T PFS 
6ZIT | 9I°90T ShS 
ae ct 90T VG 
Sell FT 90T T¥G 
LEIL | 1° 901 Ove 
931 | T° 901 6EZ 
96IT It 901 8E6 
Fell OT’ 90T LEZ 
€8 OLT C6 SA 
ae L°90T 09 9jou 984 
Z8 691 76 8A 
at 191 G6 8A 
18 POT G6 SA 
O08 - T6 SA 
is OT SOT Cgz 
a £9T 06 8A 
6L ae 68 SA 
dS | WL | -onysaosey 





23D 


Conspectus of Text-Units 















































x LLEV | 94% (a) THF @ OT fa 2% ae SM eae th CORY. 4 Tite 
Z 9LTV ee a éB rT | SE'snt LLG tiger: Z9Tl 902 V 0% 
x GLI V P CF) OFF eT pe Ne ate ei ; OTT 0% V 61 
é AB Pee Kes ee e Pee bes teaet my 3 Sen 
a ee 5a ey a4 sheds Fate Fe F a 
: ITY eee eet ig aan are $3. aan at 
x TPLT V P (F) OFF J PEI GBLLT gag i RY a 6STE | T'F0aV LI 
x |eezTV >) (7%) OFF | DIG FT a ee Saad ia is 6gIl | A60OZV) gt 
x SELL V 2 (%) OFF pq FI Cit ety was Sees sien e LSLI L'®E0% V GT 
x VeLt Vv 2 (%) OFF v tL SEOLT 16°89 emer. LOTT | T'e806 V FI 
x ap tp q (+) OFF P2qQIt a oi sh As AK OSIT | T°S02V ray 
x VELT V q (¥) OFF “J eq GOL OSS Peas ; 6FIT T'20Z V rat 
x VILLV B (¥) OFF OT S'GLT 8T‘0¢ pe pi sae SPIT | $103 V IT 
a ee : ve pee: art Se mee back see ares ie 
x EEL Is: AY oe as 9°SLT 91°09 hee : FFIL | I TOZ V 6 
) ud 
e ras Be ay c SUFLI 1'0¢ Ds dare : OFII Uae 9 
x T'69T V (¢) 68h qvg ST FLT T'0¢ ie tala : FPIL | T°66LV L 
x 9891 V | P24 (3) SEF L‘P9 ZUTLI El'6F qe er ; IvTT €°86I V 9 
x PS9TV | 44%(z) ser peg a ga o16P eek a ; OFIL | 3°86. V g 
x e891 V | p2 q(t) LgF qeg OUPFLI O1'6F das : OFTI | Z°S6LV t 
x 891 V v (1) LEP ¢ CPLI 8'6F foie Leer: Z | Zsa‘2sit| T°S6I Vv ¢ 
% nae eee ee ante tre ort iat eres ; re ae “ 
% ; peaGlane ie Liens ; : tonic onl : ; : at 
x pace eee ‘ers ern eee SPLIT l'6F cee ess ° eell LOL V T° 
AAV, | TA Ag | II 8x III °9g ita | mtids H mn] Ill ds | Titel fecthaiee 
, 2 , | | -ONIjsUoIeY 











Conspectus of Text-Units 


236 


a 


9T 

GT 
oq pus 

Bol 

las 

€T 


ia 


a a 


Ir 
x Ost V 
$41ed OT 
= OT 


eee 


bt i ee 


AI 4V | IA 4g | 





{91 sd sii 
oe ee see eee 
ee vee eee eee 
ee Are.e ee eee 
ee eee ore eee 
ee eee eee eee 
ee see eee eee 
ee eee eee eee 
oe eee eee eee 
ee eee eee eee 
oe eee eee eee 
ee . . eee eee 
ee eee eee eee 
ee eee eee eee 
e-. eee eee eee 
e- eee eee eeoe 
ee eee eee eee 
ee eee ene . e 
ee eee eee eee 
ee eee eee eee 
ee eee eee ee 
oe see eee eee 
oe eee eee eee 
-e eee eee eee 


III °S | TI td | I 14g | 





H 


LT} 6 0g 
6T IZ 66 


: éF0GT 60¢ V 


f i.e 806 V 
y L6TT { 106 V 








IN| II ds | Ill 








9% SA 
QZ SA 


FG SA 


ES SA 
Go SA 
TZ SA 
O3@ SA 


Ve 


6] SA 
ST sa 
LI SA 
QT SA 
CT SA 
€% 
ZS 
PT 8a 
gT sa 
ZI SA 
(TT 84) 
OT sa 
6 SA 
Q SA 
L SA 
Q SA 
G SA 


TI won 


-dn1jsuo0dey 


Cen e 


237 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


MK WK OW 


oh 





oe Me bug Balossane 2 | 











TI'F6 P 2 (SI) 6FF 1% 9Z CLIst S109 oe: ai ; EESTI LIT If 
fod Sai) nae PSs GIST 9°09 a ta ; SSSI SLIT OF 
Ll'¥6 qe(et)erp j°qeec pons] ZI‘OsT FT'6S eae : SEal VLIT 6g 
II 41039 
PSI V pur ate ke ee ames csets Rats eet a 
bee rez OgsT TISV| se 
£4 P 9 (ZI) StF P&Z L'8¥Z 0Z'6T ae Et: : OSZI FIZ V| Lg 
T Atoyg Jo pug 
ova q & (ZT) StF 9qQeEs PST ST'6I (6°F9) TT'06 P S2ck Pek air 9¢ 
Fs (TT ‘OT) LFF ‘OFF ZS $'8hZ 9T'6T (9°F9) 6°06 : LUZE | 6°OTT cE 
si (6)ohr | 12 ‘P20Z ee b¢ (¢'F9) 8°06 : 922r | 2° 9RT rE 
sg (6) SFP ‘39 q 20% BBLS FI6l (¢'F9) 1°06 GZzr_ | 9°9TT 6g 
i ® (8) PP P°6I GULP OT'6T (Z'F9) 9°06 : FECT Z°9TT og 
ce q (S) $¥F qt 6r SI'LFS OL6T (T'79) $'06 : FECT | SOIT 1g 
J 41039 
oe a, Mage a Gap ee eee MTL aed ; Ey eizy| og 
cid P 2 (2) StF POST GF AI cP’ AI 6 III VG 9% LF Sg SA 
c'est V Paheddis Sia 24% gt 60ST ET'69 aeons ozzt |puecizv| 62 
V'EstV| 29%(9) orF LT ‘PO9T 6'08T ST'6S 5H) ES > “0SGEZTT) ei Sie «Re 
ewe ciut ie Pelee evnake 7 aah cats au tiny! be ; F911 11Z¥1. 22 
CIST Y Sore ate, po4qer pte eo pes Et : aeRy cay i 
fe Ce ae ewe he ee - iS erat os a a 2 8A 
ne ae ea ee eS oe bts = eee : ie at T9 8A 
IZ oe aes ae ee eee : ts ae 0g 84 
2st y eee owe pte wake ray cpree Peon «eos “ aes OIZ ¥ —(¢@) 
a oo eee 50, Fee ade ee ea : he OF 6g 8A 
ae Nie a arlene oe sap a ee : aay Fe, en 84 
ie hh pl pe Ae me +a mas : hte 90 1 8A 





Conspectus of Text-Units 


238 


- Wie eee eee eee eee QL eee , waeare ce . sia < gugit ‘d (Zp SA) 




















x LZ «lay vas 64% FE bb Gea dceee eo e eee g‘ugtyt‘d LP SA 
Z feb. ed oe) ard ney oe ce teed f *¥ Seti 5 
5 th eee | Sy ee f coe nh ey : oan ¥ was 
2 oz Sy Aare ee x, ais oy eT ae 90 go eA 
. : o 6's ~ 0% we. 6 Ces Tore GL'F8t eee as Oe | oe re . oir ay I'61L LG 
, “e Pee eee pre = ae gh eee ’ =p uA 6 gk 
x 9% aves es qv Ge ‘po FE @), eee eee eae e ~ og 1g LE SA 
a sited oh eles, ee rereT res Pa ee : Ante | creak 6 
x 2'S6 PB (6T) eh “0 pg ‘Jo SPST os (9°99) €°z6 Test | TE'STT ge 
x ST'S6 9 (61) oct eg ‘p9q8s*P96S| SPST ZT'39 (7°99) 1°26 ; SFI 6°SIT iat 
L196 ee qe oe VTSI | St ‘Seg a tao Ae 8°STT g 
x FI'S6 q @ (61) ech Tg Z'rSt 8°39 (¢°99) T3'16 ; LEST LST rae 
x ST'e6 2 q (81) FSF p20 VPst L°39 (3°99) OZ'T6 |” LEST 9°STT Tg 
x ores =| D4? (ST) ror q B62 ST's @°39 (2°99) 02'T6 Pal g°Stt 0g 
x 6'S6 P 2 (LT) SoF aA wet: ZT'Est ve imoy, SQ , CPal P'Sit 6F 
x L'S6 q & (LT) Sch tee 6 OI'SSt rear ($1°¢9) ST'T6 ; T¥31 Z°SIT St 
x 9°96 P 2 (9T) agF 2408 6 ‘9 EST [239 SS'T9) (ET'S9) ST'T6 ; IFZI T'SIt LY 
x VS6 9 (91) ecF B 0g 7 S'SST Z'O9 (ST°S9) 8T'16 TPZE | GELTT 6| OF 
x ec6 | 1% (9T) 3cF q 2 0¢ SSSI 29 (Z1°E9) ST'T6 : EPSr | GY TZUT cf 
III 410379 
x 1103304 #6 “d pa BSS 22 p2gz F'ESt 13°19 SoS tae OVS | ST°LIT tt 
x Go (eT) 1¢P7 1% BZ ra Z8 €I ‘III cS 83 0¢ 9g SA 
x FE (ST) Ter ‘Fo Q2gg ‘yo | 13ST ST'T9 ey PECL J} SULIT St 
X | FBSA‘BT"P6'30 (FT) OSF Jo 13 ‘7 69 6L Ne ah Le 6 Cg SA 
= TZ (FT) OSt 13°} 89 SL ae ihe SF PE SA 
x ST'F6 (I ‘pex)och‘perr | 2LZ‘P2qQ 9% LST VEO ea ML ; FEZl S° LIT GF 
ATV | ta 4g | I § III og | I ta | i 1dg | ir x| Ill ds | Tithc “Woceteotbe 









Conspectus of Text-Units 


ia 





€°L6 
TL6 
L¢°96 
9€°96 
F696 
0€°96 
L696 
06°96 
Go'96 


Vo 96 ‘J? 
2°96 
O& 
97:96 = 
696 
6196 


6°96 
6% 


u10330q ¢6 “d 
u10930q ¢6 “d 
u103430q G6 “d 


P 2 (#2) O9F J 


P 2 (#2) 09F 
q ® ($2) OOF 


P 2 (€2) 6SF 


q ® (¢Z) BEF 
P (2%) 8¢eF 
2 q (ZZ) Ser 


® (ZZ) Ser 
P (13) LSF 
v (IZ) L&F 
24 (12) Le 


P (02) 98F 


eee * ore 


q ® (02) 9GF 
P 2 (61) ech 





Pp? OP 
q* 97 
cy 


P? &P 
é6P Eh J 
q® cv 


eee eee 


SP 
POTF 
qe tr 
P°0F 
q* OF 
qe 6e 
P92 6E ‘P® 8¢ 
9 6E ‘12 BE 





18 
STL8T 
SILT 


LUL8T 
cTLst 
EULST 
TT'L8T 
6 L81 
LL8t 
9 LST 
€Lst 
G LET 
6¢ 98T 
CG 98T 
GT98t 
cT9O8t 
GI'98T 
GT'9St 
08 
8°98T 
6L 
T'98T 
€6'S8T 
GG SST 
TESST 
Oe E8T 
TT Sst 





16 
€°¢9 


Se t9 


1649 
T@'F9 -P 
T6't9 


02°F9 ‘J 
61°F9 
LUF9 
El't9 
CT ‘sl #9 
CT ‘Z1'F9 
IL't9 
OT ‘S°F9 
F°F9 





(Z1°29) 13°26 
(IT'L9) 12°36 


(OT'L9) 02°26 


(6°29) 6°36 ‘Fo 


(6°29) 61°36 
(1°29) 81°36 
(9°19) 8T°S6 
(S19) LI'6 
(o°29) 91°36 
(#29) S136 
($29) @T'a6 
(729) S1°S6 
GI ‘III 
($1°99) 1T'Z6 
(S199) 11°36 
(21°99) OT'S6 
FT IIT 
(s'99) ¢°z6 
($'99) 9°26 
(2°99) 36 


Lol 
TLel 
T2Z6T 
OLGT 
OLGT 
696T 
6961 
€& 
996T 
6& 
69eT 
T9ET 
T9SI® 
T€ 
9Gel 
9GeT 
9961 


Le QF SA 
61ST Z8 
61ST 18 

III 41099 Jo pug 
L'TZt | 08 
9° TZ 6 
G'IZt SL 
S° 12 LL 
2 tat (92) 

GT OZT GL 

FI O@E PL 

ST OBI GL 

ZI OST a 
IT O@T 1) 

OL O@T OL 
L'0%T 69 
9°08I 89 
¢'OZT 19 
¢° 031 99 

9¢ GP SA 
1‘ 031 cg 

TU 031 PP 8A 

91° 6IT r9 

ST 6IT g9 

FT 6IT 29 

GG GP SA 

OL'6IT 19 

OL’ 6IT 09 
6611 6S 





Conspectus of Text-Units 


240 





x GT'86 P (9%) Z9F ga ae LTT6T3| 6°89 ‘7? t : 9621 Fat E01 
x ZI'86 ees ay qepa‘poge | LI'I6T 6°89 : : F6SI @° Sst Z0T 
x 8°86 oe ate qego ‘poge| ZIét SI°L9 ; ‘ PEST S Sat 1OT 
x 9°86 | 94 %8(9%) Z9F Ig 061 el'99 : ; art 35 OT REY OOT 
. rut ye eee wee ye aI eee 18 ene . . eee 6¢ (QP SA) 
: fae te coe ners. tee | , d , ‘ 
Veeoer it vues Z6Zl_ «| FT SSE 66 
x 98°16 po(¢z) 19F | qBZEe ‘Te ‘Jo chat te cT'L9 ; : O62T ZT SST 86 
x F8'L6 Sie tat eR Be ST'68I va ; O6ZE | IT’sat L6 
x 86 Sp es p%0¢ LU 68T t1'99 ; : 6831 OL Sar 96 
x G86 erly ses q 0g 9T'68T PI'99 k ‘ 68ZI «| OL SST 6 
: oe ves ie tae Y. ap of cont aah da fous 
x ot v0¢ ah S199 - | 6ggt | 9°set ¥6 
x 08°L6 q 2% (¢z) TOF >] = P2qG6F FJ! OZS88T $°99 : : GSI O° SST 6 
x 62°26 q ® (CZ) L9OF P? 4 6F SI'Sst Z'99 : Gat aa | 6 
x 8S'L6 ELT EGS v 6F EL'SSI 61°99 : P8ZI ¥' Sol 16 
x 9CL6 Pree, Feet eee Ci eeT gT'ag . : ESZI ‘Jo |e°U SOT 06 
x GZ'L6 Prnete PSF IT'881 L189 ; ‘ E8sI z” Cal 68 
x ZS'L6 pS IR q SF 88ST €1'99 : ZBsl_ «| LE’ IST 88 
x O3'L6 ee 94% QP 9°88T Z1°S9 ‘ 68st «| LU IST 18 
x 6I'LG paar i Ges €°88T 6'a9 . : TSZI ‘J9| GT TST 98 
x ST'L6 Be ae PQ LF SSI "ag f : 18st | PEST gg 
x ST'L6 Wexvab ie qe LF 38ST gag ' : I8Zq | PL TS 8 
: AT 41039 
x CI'L6 ticgen ake | Pa POLI 9°69 : O8Zzt | et IZt €8 
AI+Y | 1A 4g | III 84 III oS | IIT tg | mr ids | H 10 x| Il ds | Tie pees 














241 


Conspectus of ‘T'ext-Units 


~ 


no” 


vas 


nA KA 


naw KA 


en oo os 


n~ 


a 


“~ 








LST V 
€P 


£981 V 


Tast V 
6S81I V 
Vest V 


Gt'Oor 
eV 

LO0T 
OF 
6€ 
C366 
66°66 
G66 
LE 
9°66 
[66 
+66 
G66 
T'66 


9€ 
c¢ ‘rE 
€& 





P 2 (08) 
q ® (08) 


P 2 (68) 


9 q (63) 
® (62) 
P 9 (83) 


eee . 


(23) 


99F 
994% 


GOP 


GOT 
SOP 
FOP 


w0340q gg ‘'d| DGB (83) Z9OP 


€9P 





P 8g 
LG 
P2 99 
q29gG 


Gg 








rer | OroL 


FOr 


'{ IC 96T 


\‘ez°e6r 
ZS S61 
13°61 
1Z°S61 


0G S61 
SOT 
TOT 
OOT 
TS6t 
Ve6l 
Te'e6l 
66 
0Z°661 
€tcé6l 
TT's6t 
8°c6l 
8°c6T 


oco6l 


TTt6Tr 





FIT 
hr J | 
cor J 
GOL 
POL 
SOL 


OL 


ett 

ort 
ct'69 
cT'69 
cV69 

Itt 
TT'69 
G69 
€°69 
269 
66°89 


6T'89 











(€¢°AI) 9¢°AI 


TE 





66 





Test 














LIV). Oat 
69 Lg SA 
9IZV|  6Il 

€°SIZV|  8tt 

SSIS V| LT 

1 Gic-¥ oes 

Tote yee oe 
IL A104g Jo pug 

O° G21) errs 
89 | 9g sa 

0% FT ell 
19 Gg SA 
99 PG SA 

OL Fat 31 

6 FSI LIT 
6° PSI OTT 
9 EG SA 
G' P21 60T 
€ Zl SOT 
TFSI LOT 

SI Ssl 901 

ST Sal col 
AI 41039 JO pug 

FI Sal FOr 
€9 zg SA 
39 TG SA 
19 OG SA 
09 6F SA 


16 


Edgerton, Pancatantra. II. 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


242 


i : vee Sse corte Me sath bin “aj eee 3 T8088 Y (6e1) 



























































ee ve is " 2 
: e681 V eas. Bae gh OEY te, apr ene. “eet eee Sai 
x 2681 V lene so * Pez 6° L6T LVL Ft, eae ; rest L613 V Ler 
x VEST V | (Bev ‘poar)oqverr joqegyZL‘PILL| 6 ‘P'LET | OT ‘62 oe! Patty Seer | 1°6IZ V 98T 
x | 688 V SS q TL GI ‘PL'96T | SI ‘SI'S ve Gages my SEE e°SIaV cg 
= $'SSl V (esr ‘pry) pq 22%] BTL ‘poo, Gl'96T 6'3L in: nn ey Y Ogsl 3G 8IZ V FSI 
x | B88TV) (Th) BLL7r q% OL 6961 9°OL gl gee We sei T'staV | eet 
x V8st Vv! ({e IF) Pp 9LF 69 02'S6T GZ5Te eect a Oss T° S13 V | Ze 

A Atoyg jo pug 
x SETOL | (P20t) 4% OLF p2gg SI'a6T COIL (Ol'ST) FL'9FT | | 6281 91° 921 cat 
x IVTOE | (12 OF) P? SLF qe 89 LUG6I AA ed (oOrest) er-orT | SZET Gl 98T Og 
(6g ‘Pp 2 gg) | 
x ‘TOl * ; ; LZgI “9ZT | ZI 
8'T0 eres L9 9T'S6T Tecbe (6°SE1) ST'9FI ¢ ZI‘ 9aT 6 
i (q 8 gg ‘28 ‘po 98) , j ; ; : j 
x FIOT eee 99 ‘po ag O'S6T OTL (6°SEl) ZL'OFI GZEl | 6981 RZ 
A bah (q 8 9g ‘gg ‘po Fg) ‘ ; ‘ ry 8 ; ee s 
Sweetie Ble s’a6T | PILL (s'oeT) Zr'erT L* 981 Lal 
; q ® (FE) OLF once 
x $°1Ol oF 1'G6T ‘Th L'08 ; “9% I 
0 et tae p29 8 (LOST) SI°SFT FORT 9% 
x ry a AP nage: qe $9 | G3 F61 OTL (9°0$T) IV'e@rt | * ibis G°9Z1 Cal 
(q ® ¢¢ ‘ZE) ie §: 
x ‘TOT ; 9 l'P6l oS'OL GOST) O'S gt" 1 
TT0 Bauiciaie ¢ 9 ( ) OL'SFT 1°S2r FZ 
x 1109404 00rd P (Tg) L9F it ee LU F6I C202 (¢0gl) 6'SFI Eel LI G@l GaT 
x mosqoq ogrdy) =. 9 q (1g) LOF P2239 ZL FEI ST'OL (Z'0gT) S'erT | ZG LI GZl Zo 
x woyjoq oor d) qe(Tg) L9F 189 C'Pel ZT'OL (FL62e er Le ZS I 91° SZI tal 
A 41039 
Aliv | 1A4g I 83 I os | Il tq | mi (dg | pe ie N| ltds | IIa | -onysdoo0y 





243 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


HK WK H 


KK KR KK KR KH KK KM OK OK 


* 


va 





raters 


LY SA 
G61 V 


Of SA “jo 


yied ‘oF 
F6I V 

$°c6l V 
cP 
€6T V 


166T V 
oT6r V 
VI6E V 

{ 06T V 

VY 

To PO06T V 
ST'V06I V 
CTeO6T V 
TTe061 V 
8 F061 V 
Ge06T V 


68061 V 
Ve061 V 


eee eee 


(q % CF) p2 O8F 


eee ee 


(p94 PP) 
8. 08F ‘P 6LF 


2 (€h) ® 6LF 
(8 $F SD SE) 9G ELF 


eee eee 


eee eee 


(q 8 Ef) PO SLF 
(q ® ¢F) 
P2 SLF J? 


P COL 
9q¥ Or 
8 
08 ‘6L 
Ci oLe 
p29, 


qeg, ‘qea, 
Vg, ‘paey 
VG, ‘POP 


P9%FL. 
Ge PL 





6°S06 
LOT 
9°S06 


99T 


OGl 
6 S06 
L1°006 


eee 


ere 


91'00z 
G1'00Z 
LIT 
L'S61 
9TT 
€'861 
€°861 
€¢°L61 
08'L61 
CTT 
P2161 
PG'L6I 
Zo LET 
13°L6T 
61261 


ee 


ST L6l 
ST°L6T 


66 PL 
IO PL 
61'PL 
91° PL 
961 
LYL 
LOL 
orL 
PPL 
Lie 


eee 


AD 19 °AI |68°T] 


ee e 


ee . 


. 


8& 








09€T 


LO€I 





qqezz v9 
es 9 
r'S9l 


28 J 
SL 
B2GC2V 


LL 
92 
F265 V 
G23 V 
PL 
Zoe V 
§L 

Z1ZSV 

Galecy 

T° I3aV 
{Oza V 

9) 

S°VOSSV 

1°BOZZSV | 

g*BOZZV 

F'%0ZZ V 

P'VOZSV 

S°BOCeV | 








| 
ZB 08S V | 
1°8 033 V 


16* 


Te°ror 
LO FOr 
63° FOL 
96° FOT 
ca vor 
66 POT 
TS'vOl ‘Jo 
16°FOT 
06 FOT 


“~ K OK 





ww OK 


wm OK 


! 


w 





x 861 V 
x 6P 
L61 V 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


SP sa 
‘98°S0T 
Ze SOT 
0$'€0T 
82'S0T 
G3'eoT 
F2°SOT 


nA AK AK 


4 
+ 





AI IV | IA 4g 


244 


(0qu TS) vL8F ‘pI 98r| TVOHG ‘PEG 


eee eee 
ee see 
eee ove 


(p29 0¢) 4 ® 98F 


eee eee 


(q % 0) Pp? GgP 
(Pp 2 6F) 1 & Sgr 


(1B 6F ‘Po USF) 
PS8h ‘9 ESF 
(q USP “Po LF) SBP 
(qe Lb ‘p 9F) P29 q BBP 
(p 2° 9F) 1B ZgPF 
(1% OF) P? 18h 
(Bop ‘poch)9q ISP 


Ill 8x 








Els 
66 OF 
T3206 
06°0E 

6'0¢ 


9°06 AIA 








| OF L0z 

P92 6 | 8°10 

286 | 9202 

2 §6 ‘pe C103 

2 ¢6 ‘Jo G'10% 

2 €6 ‘Jo F'L0Z 

2 €6 ‘p I'L02 

qe EG ‘Jo 1202 

1 ¥ 36 €6'90% 

P16 81'90% 

q*® 16 91°90Z 
P206 OLT 

4* 06 ‘68 ZT'90G 

G06 ‘P2888 | 6°90 

qe gg 6°90z 

Nas 1908 

18 9°90Z 

98 290% 

p2¢g 1902 

qzeag CZ'G0Z 

| $8 FI'S0Z 

€8 ZT'S03 

| Ill °S | 


TW td | TI 149 | 





0 


























LLEI | ST 6Z1 SLT 
9181 LI 631 LLI 
GLEI | 91° 621 QLT 
PLEL | 9T'68I GLI 
; FLET ental PLT 
a, ELel GL 631 ELT 
: GLET P1631 LI 
Es ELel T1621 LT 
| ZLET SI 631 OLT 
ZLEI ZT 6ZT 691 
ILA 41039 
TLET L&S V 891 
6g 6F 6L 19 8A 
LOST 96% V LOT 
... =|BAEBEVE 
cael vat 
cost |BQeEZcVs| g9r 
TA Atoyg JO puny 
F9EI P' FOr POL 
FOSI ¢' FOL E91 
| - S98T L'F9I Z9T 
: eget | GI'gor LOT 
- | ggeq G1°E91 091 
| 198k | er'gor GST 
Tost | Bt's9t | 8g 
| TA 41049 
11 N} Titan | “Tee ae 





245 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


os a 


A WK 


al 








p901 
UL0}}0q 
got d 
U0} OG 
got ‘d 
UL0}}0q 
cot “d 


10% V 
1¢ ‘0G 
00% V 





661 V 


IT’coT 
6 GOT 
Loot 
8$°coT 
9°S0T 
FS For 
Tcot 
FE FOL “Fo 





Teror 


eee eee 


(epg ‘po gg) 
94% Z6P 


qe Lor 


901 ‘PO GOT 


(828) 92Z6F | 4eGOT ‘PFOT 


(q 8 9¢ ‘p90 GG) T6P 
(4B Gg 'PS) OGP ‘P92 68PF 
(e 7G ‘po ga) 
94% 68P 


(q % gg) P2 Sgr 
(0c) ® gr 

(P “4 ZS) 4 SSF ‘P LSP 
(8 3g ‘p TS) 9q LEP 


eee eee 


2 F0t 


P? 16 
IQ? 16 


P9996 
¥6 
c6 
¥6. 5° 








‘AQ fo woytpo s,joyoy Jo ger ‘d wo ‘EF SA ‘TIT dS oO} oou oag (; 


ZI'OS 
OT ‘E°O1% 
ZOIS 


6 OTE 


6'602 
LT 
61606 
61606 
$806 
F806 
TLE 
T'80¢ 
T’806 


T@'L06 
0Z°L06 
6T°L06 
8T°L06 
cT'L06 
€1'L06 
GT LOG 
TEL06 











61'TS 
Lie Lac 


6G 0G 


66'06 AI AG 


SP “Al 


(9°ZL) F196 
(2°SL) 31°96 


(9°S2) 31°96 


ve Ill 


eee eee 





OF 


(r 





€6ET 
c6ET 


c6ET 


Gb6ET 


168T 
0G 
L8¢el 


G8et 


CSét 
F8El 


VSét 





IL Sgt 
6° SEI 


8° 3st 


8° Sst 


666 V 
T8 
G66 V 


"186 V 
08% V 


866 V 
866 V 
ITA 4104 
9° OST 





08 | 


Lot 
961 


G6r 


Pol 


IITA 41039 
S61 
69 SA 
261 


T6t 


O6T 

89 SA 
(68T) 
88I 

g jo pug 
LST 





g* 0ST 
F°O8T | 
08! 
Z* OST 
TL‘ O8T 
GL 62I 


98T 
cst 
Fst 
est 
est 
I8t 
Ost 
6LT 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


x“ 








90% V 
g¢ 
rsor“d 
b°202 V 


6 ‘T'S08 V 
‘pue F06 V 


€02 V 
¢ pus ‘ZG 
1°20 V 





(p 2 ¢9) 4 ® 66F 
(q ® ¢9) P92 g6r 


(29 ‘p 2 19) 
q & S6F ‘L6P 


eee eee 


(q% 19) Pp? 96F 


203 V | (P2909) 4% 96F 


$¢ 90T 
Te901 
90°90T 
co 90T 
66 90T 
06°90T 
6F 90T 
9T'90T 
Ot'90T 


8°90T 
g’90T 


TA 4S 





(4% 09) P2 G6F |PIOTL J ‘GT 


(p2 6¢) 1 & GEF 
(q & 69) P2 FEF 


eee “ee 


(p2 9c) 4° FEF 
(9q B 8G) B HEF ‘PO SEF 


(e gc) 2 g6F 
(p94 19) 4 BSF ‘PD B6F 
_ (Pp 98) 4 T6F 


III 8x 











Se 
(1? Sor 
GGT 
PEEL 


1ZT ‘P2 03] 


LIT 
OTT 


PIT 

Ett 
POTIT 
POSIT 
Tearr 
qe tit 

OTT 
P® 60T 
24 %.60T 


P® 80T 


q LOT 


TEs 


q B® OBI “6TT ‘SIT 


GVSOt ‘POLO! 





EG CLG 


COCIG 
TGS 
TO GIG 


6EGTS 


SI'SIZ 
6LT 
LOL ‘SLT 
BUGIS 
Si'ere 


ITGIe 


SCS 


LTS 
LT1G 
TTS 
LVOTG 
T@'016 
LT OTS 


TD. 








22 ree: nae +e arta 
ak J ee LOVE «=| G'aceev| LIZ 
x sori. 2 90FE |e°dessV| 91% 
ae Cae est COF] |Z°4CSeV) Iz 
wh vet -Btike |e EOrE | t'acecy| #12 
a: Geer as oe Z0FT ecezy| &€1% 
was eee eae | aa roe (TL 84) 
S9I Perr: wate Siete ZR (OL 8A) 
i. oe ee ~— wre ore 
GhSs aeons ZOFT 783 V TZ 
LITA Atoyg Jo pag 
CIS (IT'bL) 98°86 OOFT €° Sst O13 
oe (O1'FL) 2°86 OOFT Z' Sst 60% 
9°S% (Ol'FL) 2°86 OOFT ISS 80% 
153 (FTL) OT L6 | 6681 13° Sel L0% 
” het xe —~ nate? ie 
es (9°21) L'L6 86ST 61 ZEt COZ 
is (G'gz) L'L6 S6ET 61° ZS] $03 
(°g2) 9°L6 LOI SI Zsl G0% 
LVS (ST'SL) 3°26 96e1 LI'sl 203 
OT'3e: (Z1'SL) TLE c6gI 91g 10z 
9°33‘E2IZ| (OT'SL) ST°96 CET tI SST 002 
FEZ (6°ZL) FI'96 F6ET EI‘ sel 661 
Gols (6°3L) F196 F6ST IL Zét 861 
le oe ek et Le TDi t aon 
mi dg H - |i N Ill ds | Tie eee 























9kE V 

















247 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


MH MM KR mM OK 


A KW KK 


iA 


4 


Paes Shh dS RS pS 


wm OK 





ge’60r 
6& 60T 
62'60T 
L6°601 
96°60T 
€6'60T 
GG 60T 
06°60T 
6T'60T 
LT 601 
9T60F 
E601 
€T'60T 


L601 
Gq 

T’60r 
96°80T 
c¢"sor 
6¢ 80T 
L6'80T 
¢<o'80T 
66801 
06° 80T 


LOG V 
¥G 








1% (OL) 90E 
P 2 q (69) G0¢ 
q ® (69) G0 
P > (9) FOS 
2 (89) FOG 

q & (89) 0G 
¥ (89) FOE 
p 2 (29) ¢0¢ 
9 (19) 0¢ 
q% (19) $0 
P (99) 204 
(—) 24 0¢ 
(099) %30¢ 


(499) ptos 


(299) P29 TOS 
(p¢9) 410¢ 
(p9¢9) q4¥% [Oe 
(9¢9) B® T10¢ 
(q¢9) poos 
(8 g9) 200¢ 


(—) 206 
‘(p29 #9) GR ODE 


cgT 

Pq tS 
@HEl ‘SST 

P24 EI 

VZEl ‘po TST 

Geist ‘Post 
9q% OST 
P2q 62T 

BV 6ST ‘P28Zl 
q & Sot 
P 231 
q® LZ 

9 22T ‘P 92T 





T9Ts 


06'ST6 
06'SIG 
9TSTs% 
a Bea 
GT'STs 
TEStsS 

L°ST@ 

9°STS 


VG VIG 
T@'Fls 


O6T 


ELVIS 
Sst 
EPETs 
GETS 
TEST6 
OVEls 
6° ETS 
S'ETG 
GETS 


86 C1G 
O8T 








6'FG 
8 re ATA 





SF 


GP 


If 


Gort 
ZF 
ZOPl 
Zr 
T3FT 
IZFI 
1GPT 
OFT 
O@FT 
OZFT 
O3FT 
61 FT 
61FT 


€¢ 
SItl 


6G 
irl 
elrt 
aaa s 
olPl 
GIPT J 
TThl 
TIVE 


OFT 
TS 





9° EI 
9° C8T 
g’ gst 
$° Sst 
€° cst 
1° ost 
T° aet 
LY’ PEt 
LT’ vst 
he aca 
cI’ rEt 
FI Pst 
PI VET 


L8 


IL’ vst 

98 
Let 
9° FST 
c’ rst 
v'vEl 
rel 
eG’ PSt 
Lvsrt 
T Pst 


LEC V 


¢8 





Conspectus of Text-Units 



































+ 
E a8 ae, be. ee Phe 2. 
x 2S V ® (91) €1¢ P GFT 6°08 SPS 
x si P (G2) 2g J os, O1Z =r 
x T'St% V | (42) 3g ‘po (FL) 11¢ o9Q° 6FT C'0GE 9°78 
x PBIGV| 42 (PL) TTS SPI | $088 FPS 
x VIS V P (€2) OTE L¥I 1023 L'?8 
x 613 V ot) cas OFT ZS'61S ZT'S8 
ss Mock. ies nd he Get we ee 
x TIS V ee eerie po CFI 1Z'61G IT'e8 
x | SIZ V FG) SO he a ¥2'61Z | FTES 
x TIISV Peer ees . F SE 616 ST Ss 
x OIZ V 2 (¢21) OTE aa! CTI vgs 
x egg | qe(gz)otg yo) - “#3 hd, 
60% V L613 : 
: | bahia q® (€2) OTS PO | srgre | 88 
mn ; ei | @'61Z rr 
| (ZL) 608 sents [ouaaae |S 
x 6806 V bias Se qe OFT 9T' 913 
ae ae So are orate nee 
x 3°80% VP “eEVasat 691% 1Z'08 
ats oS abet aie sina 
4 a(TL) 80¢ 39 [BRET ‘PIOLET] ZET 61°08 
ae re ray eater a 
x 802 V (11) 80¢ | 681 ‘POSET| ¢'9TZ 9T'08 
x eA P? (02) 90¢ 9¢1 E91 02°6% 
AL 4V 1A 4g Ill 8x Ilr °s Wa | wridg | 





























CF eg ¥6 | 08 84 | 
2 “ee 26 6) SA | 
6eFI LIZ V 09% | 
| a 26 SL SA 
| Sérl 973 V 683 
. is arev | 89% 
: gert | eepev | Ls | 
cept §6| P'FPSZV | «9ae CO 
cert f° TP2V Gos 
PStI | S'PISV FG 
SeFT €' FIZ V bhekG 
eSPl I F#3 V 696 
icaa! L't¥3 V 1c 
PP rg 06 LL 8A 
LOFI €t3 V OfG 
"** lene ‘tes yi (688) 
9ZFT 2° OFZ V 8hz 
LOFT «| T° Ons V L¥Z 
gzrt | Toray | oF | 
eee 68% V CRS | 
tieie 9g Q) SA 
vee - FF 
CZFrT 882 V EFS 
Corl 886 V CPS 
xX] A101g Jo pug | 
MIN] Wds | NIL | panenosog 











249 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


i a i a we KR OAK 


ta 


* 





Ststt 
6 €TT 
Lstt 
9°STT 


SIZ V 


69 
89 84 LTS V 


+9 
g9 


q‘eGIZV 
co SA 


66 


66 84 
(71Z V) 


ee 


8g 








9 ‘e (22) PIG 


q (22) FTE 
B (22) $TS 


p2 (92) $T¢ 


qe (92) SI¢ | meee 





Fal ‘po gel 


qeegl 
P? GGT 


V SGT ZCI 


q@ OST 


IGE ‘OST 





86 166 
LOTGG 
96° TGG 
Go 166 


EG 1Té6 
E16 
6E TGS 


G16 


ITS 
OTG 


806 


606% 


6E 066 


L036 
906 
C06 
F06 





TOT 
"SSUL “QW 


O9T 
"SSUL ‘QuIe] 


a2 


S9T 
*SsUL “QuIR yy 


ee 


Gor 
"SSA “que 


6ST 
‘SSM “QUIvy 


GLI 


vLT 








(9'FS1) LELPT 
(9°FST) TELFT 
(Q'PST) OV LET 
(FST) OF LTT 


(19 “AI G9 AI 


eee see 


OG 


6F 
SY 
LY 
9F 





6oPrI 


9¢ 





9° 6ST 
¢° 6ST 
Pv’ 6ET 
v' 6ST 


TSé V 
LOT 
Océ V 
90T 


GOT 


401 
Or 
cOT 
Tor 
OOT 


676 V 








896 
L9G 
99% 
C9 
xX AIO 
$9Z 
6 SA 
S96 
26 SA 


16 SA 


O06 SA 
68 SA 
RS SA 
LQ SA 


98 SA 


696 


Gg SA 


196 


FB SA 
€8 SA 
Gs SA 
TS SA 


a 


~ 





Conspectus of Text-Units 
- 


A A 





~* ~K KF KK KK 


OVPIT Jo 
GOVET 

OVPET 
L’vtt 


02 
erit 
OVE 


OVI ES SET 

GUST 

Vit 
9° S11 
re'srt 
Ce'ert 
oe’ elt 
O£'etl 
66° ETT 
BA°ETT 
VI'Stl 


IA 4g 








94" (08) LIG 


Pp (6L) 914 
D9 (62) 914 


4 (62) 919 


Ww (GL) 9T9 ‘pO (BL) LG 


qv (gy) oTg 
v (81) G1 
P (LL) P19 


o (21) PIG 





Po T9 


. ye, bat 


{2 Tot 
Pp? 6GL 
OOT 


(’6gt ‘psa 


° Sgr 


{BV sgT 
648 gg ‘yo 
Lol 
P°? 991 
1 9GT 
¥OOT 

P QT 
ov gQy 
Oo eGT 
q GST 
P POT 


HII OS 








9'966 
"O66 


6966 


VG'VGG 


mrt rey 


GG GO6G 
Vis 
61666 
81666 
Y1'BG6 
VI Gas 
G1'BGG 
OLGE6 
OSS 
8'G66 
LGee 
L666 


GGG 


III Yd 




















(SOV) Leal 86P1 anal 
Soe — ROPI Lier 
ek Lg L9 jaa 
"AA? vO GL‘ OVI 
no oS vOV Pl OPT 
rite ree st AAT 

(L;ORL) 2'ar |* * ZOrI OL OVE 

(9'OVIT) OsaT | ° 1OPI OL ORI 

(9'OP1) G'SOT | 16v1 J? | BObT 

(9'OVL) QOL) ° 16V1 8° OVI 

(ort) wear] ° OGFI L' Ove 

(VOW) SOT 68PT 9 ORT 
+ ee ike 7% 
PR) AAP east 

(SOFT) B'3al 68h1 @° OVI 
A hee # anf artnet 

(Z'OVL) B'2al S8rr ra Gaya 

(1'On1) T'SOT Lavi 1168! 

(GT'6E1) OZ TET LEVI LT 68I 
a lie gsr jtru‘egrd 

(L°6RT) BUIGI . 98hI OL’ 6ST 

(9681) TVET 98hT 6° 681 
Se ae xt Ae 

Hee. Bates 98ptr |g ‘U‘eer ‘d 

et ; e - eee g ‘u‘egy‘d 
Pa POT Cry a 8° 681 
(L°68T) SVLPI ia! L681 
H -- |IIN| dg I 


i 


o6% 
16% 
)() 8A 
06% 
683 
G6 BA 
BRS 
L8s 
98 
gRe 
at 
E83 
V6 8A 
ZRS 
18% 
(O83) 
GLE 
BLS 
LLS 
913 
GLS 
rLs 
aad 
OLS 
ILS 
OLS 


696 


It wor 


“OMISUOdOY 


251 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


LL 
636 V ‘B26 V 


o-* 


GL 
é0L 
€L 
0323 V 
ob 
¥ 616 V 
P6IS V 


é 


TL 


616 V 
CUPTT 


p 9 (08) LTg 





P2 Z9T 
(¥ 69T 








8T'966 
G66 

1°96 
¥GG 

L966 


66 


LIZ 


LIGte 


616 
PI'966 


816 
I1'S66 





668 
SLT 


€1°Ss 
9LT 


9OT 


*SsSUL ‘quuyy 


98 














G9 


for) 
pte) 











696 V 
SGI 
696 V 
Lol 
193 V 
961 
096 V 
Cor 
696 V 
rol 
896 V 
Col 
col 
LIS V 
lar 
6IT 
8tt 
LTT 
996 V 
Lag’ 


rao V 


ett 
£93 V 


Gbt 


696 V 
92 V 








FOE 
(OTT SA) 
(¢0¢) 

GOT SA 

ZOE 
SOT SA 
108 
LOT SA 
00¢ 
9OT SA 
66% 
GOT SA 
POL SA 
862 
GOT Sa 
ZOT Sa 
(TOT 84) 
OOT 8A 
LG 
66 SA 


966 


RG SA 
966 


LG 8A 
6% 


£66 


xy A109 JO puny 


GTFLY | 





























, Sees or om 
@ tty glee Ne ea 
g VIVE V 9 (I) Fee > 16 
t Z'OFT V TS Sal 116 + 
b TORT V Sipe pa "B16 9°86 
= 1 5 et Oar’ e:g28 
. : Re ee ee tak i 
° be he ine 45d e ape Z BES | 
A | ran AI Al A 
2 . es a RGR Faenne 
5 G 406 eee Pye ie cor On er 
a ‘ a ape | ois AS 5 ine es ae 
5 : me Artes; z = ey 
2 x oes ties oar 
: ; ye ee ee et: pad 
5 : & Rreealanee i reeks 182 
2 va Sy a ARs ay ea uae 
3 ° TT ayes eee eee san ee O&Z 
x 826 V ae FOL €S'9BS 
i“ en rah tie we 
= Ss a ae Sean ae 
x C&Z V (98) ¢z¢ LOT ‘991 | ¢s'9% 
7 = ahs ee See bra 
3 ae a ee Re, ones 
‘ a, ee ira 08 ian 
: | ve oars ae bee 
AL IV | IA 4g | Ill 8M TIl °S WI td 























TI ids 








| 

. SPaI 
: LET 

| | 





Fa 
OFSI 

| 39 gL 
19 LL 
99 9) 
° ateoe | 
: 63cI 





} 
| 





IN, II ds | Il Lh 


o'PLEV 

T°P28 V | 
I’ PLZ V 
1813 V 
T'Sl3V | 





ae 


ZLoV | 
AI | AT 51008 


SI° LF 
896 V 
SPT 
OFT 
Set 
LET 
9¢I 
LIEV 
cer 
996 V 
él 
cet 
G96 V 
Tet 
F9Z V 
O€gT 
661 











uoydopog 
608 
TZI SA 
OZI 8A 
GIT 8A 
(SIT 84) 
LIT 8a 
(808) 
(9T1 8A) 
LO 
(GIL 8A) 
PIT SA 
908 
€IT 94 


IIT "oly 
-on14suoo0ey 





253 


Conspectus of Text-Units 





6FT V 

9 
VSviv 

g 
€S8tl V 
TStl V 
U8rl V 

v 
LVI V 

€ 

é 
971 V 
VIGVI V 
GlGtl V 
TTS V 
S°SFIl V 
LGPtlLV 
GStT V 
LStlLy 
THI V 
6 STI V 
OSTI V 
Geri V 
Verl V 
Gort V 
VGrl V 
Vert Vv 
STV 


LMOTP v| 





eee eee 
eee cee 


® (F) 12g 


p2-(¢) 939 


q (¢) 93¢ 
q& (g) 92g 
p2 (3%) gzg 


q® (Z) ¢a¢ 
® (Z) 92g 
p ‘de® (T) $2g 


oee eee 


d (1) Fag Jo 


Cw Pat eee 





P® OTT 


G1? OTt 
gStt 


. 


P® gor 
GeSort ‘LOI 
901 ‘GOT 


P2 JOT 
1? VOT 


cor ‘Pp TOL 


P GOT 


8 oOl fP 
2% GOT 
a TOT 
P OOT 
A TSOOL 
D286 
P? 66 








66°66 
96666 
G6'6G6 


L866 





s9ct 
S9cT 
LOGT 
LOGT 
GOST 
99¢T 
FOST 
T9GT 
T9ST 
O9GT 
6g¢T 
6S¢1 


SGGcT ‘cael 


9ST 
VagE 
TagL 
SST 
oGGT 
6GET Jo 
ToT 
TST 
6FST 





686 V 
9 
e8e V 
S| 
6 186 V 
T°18¢ V 
T°'T8¢ V 
4 
086 V 
€ 
G 
6L6 V 
9°8L6 V 
9°8LEV 
G°8l6 V 
v'°SlL6V 
§°8L16 V 
G SLOV 
T8226 V 
LLE V 
v'9LEV 
€°916 V 
6° 916 V 
L°9L3 V 
@°916 V 
T°GL6V 
T'GleV 
6 PLE V 





Té 
g SA 


G SA 


LG 


yp SA 


© SA 
Z SA 


CG 
Té 





lv—LE 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


69 V 
Poot V 

aor V 
fot V 
PSL V 


SSI V 











Soot ¥ 
L 
pue ‘ost V 
Gost V 
| POST V 
Tost 


ee | 





(qe 6) Pp? agg 


(p2g) q® 3gg 


9 q (¢) gz¢ 


qe (Gg) ga¢ 
(F) 13S 


eee eee 


4 





1 ¥ Oe! 


Tat 


P° O@T 


‘61T 


LIT 


OTT ‘GIT 


VEZ ‘po zal 
| @ 8 Bat 








Fo 086 
¥G'0&6e 
T2086 


13066 


ee 


6106 


IT'O&% 











A1V | lt 4g | 









































Z09T 1°366 V St 
Oo9T 1°63 V LY 
66ST 2°162 V 9F 
6651 BTS oP 
tai: I°I6e V +h 
L €I GT 84 
1° 16% ‘062! 
C6SI 1*96¢ ¥ ep 
: a eI SA 
6861 I°88% V oP 
Gggl L8Z V 1¥ 
F8el ak. OF 
ZSGI es | 68 
c use GI SA 
f IL OL Sa 
GLGl P'986V 8§ 
Ne E983 V | Le 
grat =| T°983V | 98 
eee Or | tl SA 
aa 6 | OL SA 
Sher C83 V cs 
aiite g 6 SA 
ss I't83V | #8 
gocT J2 | 1°P8ZV | gs 
| ae Pi Q SA 
22 I #82 V Ee 
| ¢ L } SA 
N | Al dS | ATL Genaeten 





255 


xt- Units 


onspectus of Te 


C 








L'08 ‘Jo | (p29 91) F2 6EE a a ae) 








1°08 ene ts StL PUT 
9°08 “Sta es 1% SFT 
at (eof ‘p G1)2q 6g¢ po TPT 
F'08 (9 GT) & EEE qe IFT 
8E'6L (1 ¢1) pgs OFT 
FE'6L (q¥gl)pogec | 6ST ‘SET 
TS°6L (FI) q B ges “pO LEG LEl ‘9ST 
CZ'6L (pel) q2g¢ cet 
1@'6L (9 ¢1) B® 2E¢ P PSI 
aves ean Settee 
ST'6L (A4E1)P9EG | 948 FET ‘PEST 
CI'6L (8 §T) 2 9¢¢ Jo] 24% GET 
€1'6L (8 §1) 9 9¢¢ Pasi 
Z1'6L (P29 ZT) Te gEe | 24¥ZEr ‘PTET 
ae sie tes fe 
62 (q 8 ZI ‘poTL) see OST ‘62I 
6L ({BIT‘POT) PI QFES] SST ‘PP LZI 
mo3joq ‘ghd (I OID VFEE | CEST ‘OUT 
mo3}0q ‘82 'd) (POL) 4 FG @ ECT 
moj}0q ‘82 °d) = (9 OT) B HEE qe cg 
Bae Se eee 
OT =e ee POPZI 
201 WY |) (1.80 pepe A "ta Bo 


e9cl V 


(p 946) 18 Seg ‘p aEC 


natty thus & FZI 








(FST P2421 


9188S 
FTSEe 
6°8Se 
L8G 
OSES 
ES LES 
STLES 
GVLES 
OVLES 
SLS™ 
PLES 
ULES 


61'9Se 
LI'9€@ 
9T'9S% 
9196 


1$°0&6 
0€ 08% 











6 
LI9T 
LT9T 
FI9T 
Tol 
€T9T 

GlOT 
éTgl 
TT9T “J9 


TT9L 


9T 
Go’ Pal 
€°FSl 
€° yar 
LI’ Sel 
OT SSI 
FT Sat 
OT’ Sat 
6° SSI 
L°Sct 
9° SST 
Gg’ ect 
b' Ect 
Peat 
€° SST 
6° Sl 
1 get 
ST Sct 
ST Sat 
LT’GGT 
LI Sct 


F6¢ V 
GT 
6° 666 V 
1° €6¢ V 
ia! 
€° 266 V 
6°26 V 


QS] SA 


GL 











Couspectus of Text-Units 

























































































9691 V | 42 (2) Tes ite iin au et got «| e:v0sV {| LE 
g'39 V p(T) o¢e poF yp St tht ge91 | S'HOEV 9 
ezorv | po (noee ey 4 fi cor | e'toey 4 
$'Z9I V eae 3 po¢ rae See ck9T | 3° t0EV f 
€°S9T V q(T) os ive 85'69% ST'6F ceot | s'rOeV | & 
Feene Be ote cae yee. ae he eaey v0 7 
I oes eee ee ae a. eee *AI):26 ‘AT T I | T SA 
Aros : Pals cet oat . B1ez LCF o3 1e9T | £06 V | , 
ing, A A A IN A | A008 
a x wie L'9G% EZ FP Og9l | g*agT | uoqdopog 
RS (92) 6F¢ SST Lie 6291 | soevd Gg 
FL ‘SI =p. onan errs a theca A oe eta ' ez J IZ SA 
O9L V Sime rer ice i . . . oein | 10g WE #8 
Z qred ‘ZT eee “eon ‘acne » oe ee oe gig 0% SA 
I qed ‘zy | ue eae ee ° ose aa | LI 61 SA 
6ST ¥ q % (0%) gre Tl e'0FS 6°SI Sz9T c6g-V | §8 
I At0oyg Jo pug 
ue ae Ost TOFS LT LEOL f° Wye Z8 
96°08 | (61) arg ‘po (gt) Ire 6FT 616k o'CT qzor. | gt'par | 18 
€Z'08 v (ST) TFS 9 SFL te GZor_ | LI'¥ST | 08 
F2'08 Qe (SI)1IPS | PqUeePFt GT66 VS CZOL | OT FST 6L 
25°08 P92 (LT) OFE LPI PIGS UST #29T | SE°PGT | gb 
ST'08 9 q (LT) OFS OFT $1686 ESF Es9T | Ol’ FSI LL 
91°08 q (LT) OFS er Z1L'6SS GS FT GZ9T | OL FST 92 
C108 ® (21) OFS Po FFT 8°6SS SIFT ToT | 6° FST cp 
ZI‘08 (4 91) P 6E¢ q° FFL 8T'8Ez Cr 139T ‘J i$ 6° FST tL 
Aty | m14g | AI 8H AI °S AI ta | AI Idg AI dS is | A OL AL HOR 


-ON.IGSUOIOY, 


257 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


a eats Mts ie a S| 


A wR OK 


~ 


ba 


4 


“~ 








GCOTY 
FOOTY 
eco V 
T'S9l V 
VcoL V 

TIT V 


V¥8 
Lees 
98°€8 
cess 
S°E8 
TS°8 
86'€8 
G68 
66°&8 
668 
026°€8 
068 
LY€8 
cT'S8 
118 
OES 
O's 


COT V 
G 
ITG9Ot V 





(9 6) B ggg 


(q%6 ‘por glzyoaporGG 


q&(g) 16g ‘po (2) 9G¢ 


q ® (2) 9¢¢ ‘p (9) egg 
P 2 (9) g¢¢ 
q (9) ¢e¢ 
v (9) egg 
P (¢) Fag 
9 (¢) Fag 
q (¢) F4¢ 


. eee 


(¢) 299 
p2(z)T4¢¢ 








TLLS 


0G 9Lz 
6T'9L3 
PI9LG 
PI'9LS 
SU9LG 
GT'9LG 
TT'9L6 


SOLS 
SOLE 
LOLG 
LOLS 
COLE 
S9LG 
COLE 


COLE 








(SSF) ST'EST 
(1'SFT) FTES 
(GTIPT) FI'SST 


(FI'IPT) ST'Sct 
(FLIP) ores 


(9T AI) 0Z°AI'P 





N 

















OL’ Sct S¢ 
6°SST oS 
8° Sct Tg 
S°Scr 0g 
9°ScT 6% 
9°ScT 83 
90¢ V | LZ 
J Ar10jg Jo puny 
Q9I‘2ZST | 92 
GU°2sT | 92 
PILGT 2 
ET LST &Z 
GI LGT 2G 
IT LST 1% 
OT LST 0% 
6° LST 6I 
Part ST 
L°LGT LT 
9° LST OT 
CGT eat 
P'LST 1 
¢° LST eT 
FI 9ST ra 
ET 9ST II 
ET 9ST or 
J Ax0¥g 
cosV | 6 
G G@ SA 
9°FOS V 8 


17 


Edgerton, Pancatantra. II. 


Conspectus of Text-Units 


258 



















































‘ aan’ | Par ee Since eo ge a Z1'68Z PUPS cane « eaece P 6691 Mee: | uoqdoyog 
x pus ‘pg |(—)r99¢(aest)poggg'yo) A" Lae Se ae. : c69L "eh | (9¢) 
Se nege (qv gt) P2996 we ee. aoe ag oe age nae ‘ 2691 ws | GG 
Ir 41039 jo puny 
; ee (pozt)Geggg he (6°26) 9T'LEL 0691 — re 
z (q 11) P g9¢ pny: | (926) GULIT | ° 6891 ie eg 
e o we ess 8 eee . wos a Aes ee ae mes (2°L6) €T LIT ‘ Rg9T ote ZG 
a (vit‘pogt)oqeggg] “"* 7" 73% Dh (26) @VLTT | L891 GI'6ST 1g 
: ate Rehube aed 7 ee ge cy gees S89I vYieet Bi 
, ds (qwo1)paggqy yoo" 6'8es 02'9F (6°26) ELIT egg] ZI OSI 6F 
: aa (pot) 199 iy oy See 8'8cs 61'9F (G26) TULIE | Egor 11° 6ST SF 
. eee (9 G1) & £9 ww cs ose ‘=e eve ete | q 1891 8° Gel LP 
: ey (qucnipeppees. | 555 sl 6 FB'LES 6'9F (F196) QLIT | * SLOT P61 9F 
; i “siggy 1 - °° oo" F aee*hee *e"298] 8'9F- 6°OF —. 9L9T €°6aT oF 
. eee (9 #1) B EOE J a 6.8 ar cee eee roe ea <2. & - CLOT 1’ 6ST aaa 
| TT 41039 
ye 5 Sean © Eas By Bae? 11%. aA at mn 
: ee (qeateeened ae $ ; ae cine «| ae i ae, 
a 92°S91 V Ades a[30 ee an ee are S1° gel be 
x Scot V pres Be ra eo) “ae — kas Pe? 899T LI’ SST IF 
x 6I'G9L V (V1) P 19g PIt 1Z°09% sioe_ | (early L991 9I’°SSt ; OF 
x LEGOL WV ((esttposoquigg, 2QRTT 6109 9T'0S | (StZFT) OL FEE | 9991 QI'sat | 68 
x lereor VW | (var ‘po tt)oss OT 91°09 gOS (ZUZP1) 6 PST |’ F991 FI Sol 8¢ 
x  |Treoty (q TT) P Gee 6 F109 Zrog | (OVerT) 2rrsT | * e99t | et°sat LE 
x ore9T Vv } (¥1T)9 69g P8 rr09s =| STS (eerr) 2ST | coor | GI'Sst | = 98 
x 6eoLV | (P2071) 4% GSE DEON Ro aa aes (g'2rt) OFST | 1991 Inset | 98 
x gcolL Vy | (avor‘poe)sce | 8 ‘PIG,_ | -" ae | (9°SFT) PFI 6¢e91 OI’Ssst | #8 
| 
IA tV | AI Ag | A 83 Aog | ata | aldg H | AN | AAS ft ee yeh 
| | -INIJSUDIOY 


CHAPTER IX 
CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TANTRAKHYAYIKA 


Purpose of this chapter.—In the course of my studies I have 
noted many corrections which, as it seems to me, must be made 
in the edited texts of the various Pancatantra versions. Especially 
numerous are these corrections in the edition of the Tantra- 
khyayika. For this reason, and also because of the special 
importance of the Tantrakhyayika, I have thot it worth while 
to make a list of the changes which I should advocate making 
in this one text,—or rather, in the parts of it which correspond 
to parts of the reconstructed original; for I have made no effort 
to criticize the text in its unoriginal parts.—Occasional correc- 
tions in the editions of other versions will be noted in the 
appropriate places in my Critical Apparatus. 

Emendations in the text of the Tantrakhyayika.— The writer 
would propose the following emendations in the printed text of 
the Tantrakhyayika. None of the readings proposed occur in 
any of the manuscripts so far as recorded. In a few cases the 
emendations have been proposed previously by others; these 
will be noted specifically. For the reasons for the emendations, 
see my Critical Apparatus in each case. All the emendations 
occur in parts of T’ which correspond to passages of the re- 
constructed original. References are to page and line of Hertel’s 
editio princeps, and to book and section or verse of my recon- 
struction. 


P. 13, 1.5; I vs 42. °bhara® for °bhara® (with Thomas, JRAS. 1910, p. 1349). 

P. 72, 1.16; II § 73. aprechat for aprechat (JAOS. 38. 287 f.). 

P. 73, 1.17; ID § 86. nirvedakaranamukham for °karanam akhum (JAOS. 
38. 288). 

P. 74, 1.15; IL § 97. yato for ito (JAOS. 38. 288). 

P. 76, 1.11; Il § 115. vyapadya for mss. vyadhavya, vyadhadya, hatva 
(ed. viddhva); SP vyapadya (v. 1. hatva). 

P. 81, 1.15; IL vs 35. so ’nyah for sinyah (TB; JAOS. 38. 289). 

17* 


260 Chapter IX: Critical notes on the Tantrakhyayika 


P. 83, 1.6; II vs 41. °para® for °vara® (JAOS. 38. 289). 

P. 104, 1.4; II vs 81. (Read yasya with mss. for kasya, see p. 262;) 
priyajanasamagamana na syuh for ed. priyasvajanasazhngama na syuh {mss. 
priyajanasamagama- (R ma) -na (P °nas, p °nas) syuh] (JAOS. 38. 290 f.). 

P. 114, 1. 23; III vs 29. atha vyavasitanujiia for mss. atha vyavasatanus- 
nas (Hertel em. iyavyayarm sadanusnat). 

P. 123, 1.11; III vs 51. ahinsanamako for °ka (doubtless misprint). 

P. 126, 1.14; ILI § 129. svartipam for sva®. 

P. 188, 1.17; III vs 72. °nabhijfieya for °jfiaya of mss. (Hertel em. °jfiaya). 

P. 1388, 1. 6; II vs 87. °bijasat kapotad (with Kautiliya) for mss. °bijaka 
(eka) sapotad, Hertel em. °bijanam kapotad. 

P. 142, 1,25; III vs 107. Insert ca at end of pada a, with Ptrnabhadra. 

P. 148, 1. 26; IIL vs 113. visitajvaram...ivavasitabharam for visati 
jvaram...ivavasitasaram. 

Pp, 144, 1. 7; IIT vs 115. Read ’cala® for cala°? 

P. 150, 1.20; IV vs 11. naivati (Thomas), or nativa, for nati. 

P. 158, 1. 8; V § 30. daridryadosasahayataya for °dosasaha° (so ms.; 
Hertel em. °dosad asaha®). 

Unfortunate emendations made by Hertel in the text of Tantra- 
khyayika.—Following is a list of emendations made by Hertel, 
in the parts of T which correspond to original passages, which 
I find it impossible to accept. In nearly all cases I think the 
correct reading is found in some or all of the mss. In a very 
few instances I suggest different emendations.—I do not include 
here false emendations in parts of the T text which do not 
correspond to parts of the original. It will be understood, how- 
ever, that I am not here dealing with what I take to be the 
text of the original Paficatantra, but only with the text of T. 
In some eases it coincides with the original text, in others not. 
The fact that a different reading is indicated for the original is 
no reason for abandoning a possible reading of T, if supported 
by all the T mss.—For fuller discussion of the points involved 
see my Critical Apparatus. References are to page and line of 
Hertel’s editio princeps, and to book and section or verse of 
my reconstruction. 

P. 6, 1.1; 1 $12. navaikalyatain; read with mss. na vai kal° (cf. Pn na 
kalyatain). 

P. 6, 1.10; I § 20. mahantath garjitasabdam; mss. garjitam, perhaps to 
be kept in spite of irregular gender? Irregularities of gender are not 
unknown elsewhere in T. 

P,12, 1.2; I vs 32. *bhinanditavyah; mss. bhisandhitavyah (vv. ll. °man®, 
°dit®), which I think may be kept; it is again a grammatical irregularity, 
but not unique as such. 


Unfortunate emendations in the text of Tantrakhyayika 261 


P. 15, 1.16; I § 94. pratyapahrtamanah; mss. pratyapa® or (¢) pratyah®; 
read the latter. See next. 

P. 15, 1.17; 1 § 94. pratyapahrtamano; mss..pratyapa° or (eo R) pratyah°®; 
read the latter. See preceding. 

P. 18, 1.11; I § 134. °parisravana®; read with mss. °parisravana?. 

P, 22, 1.6; I § 187. Three emendations in the text in one line; Winter- 
nitz WZKM. 25. 57 rightly points out that the mss. are quite correct. 
Hertel ZDMG. 69. 296f. withdraws two of the emendations but sticks to ya 
for ye, failing to see, even after Winternitz’s criticism, that ya is singular, 
not plural. 

P. 23, 1.8; 1 § 202. sarnprapto; mss. satapratarh, which read. 

P. 25, 1.6; I § 231. arohata; mss. aruhata, which read. Thomas queried 
the emendation, and Hertel in reply (WZAWM. 25. 12) said: “ Die w-Form 
ist grammatisch falsch.” It is true that rohati is the regular form; but 
ruhati is not unknown elsewhere. Boehtlingk in pet. lex. gives it “for 
metrical reasons”; Whitney (Roots) gives ruhati -te E+. Since the mss. 
of I’ are unanimous they should be followed. 

P. 26, 1.3; I § 247. Ed. mainly with « mss. aham evopayena vyapada- 
yami sinham (mss. sinha) iti. The correct reading is that of £: sinham evopa- 
yena vyapa°. iti. So SP and Pn (SP evopayantarena; Pn eva, om upiiyena). 

P. 26, 1.11; I § 253. vy-acintayat; mss. ’py aci® (R ’dhyaci®); read ’py. 

P. 27, 1.7; p. 34, Il. 2, 3, 23; p. 47, 1.6; I §§ 263, 310, 312, 317, 455. drogdhu- 
-mati (or -buddhi); mss. « drogdha-, 8 drugdha-. Read with 6. 

P. 31,1. 7; 1 § 292. surabhi; mss. 8 surabhigandhai (so read), « surabhi 
sugandham. Cf. Pn surabhigandhi. Omit ca, added in ed. 

P. 82, 1.6; I § 302. madasramanidraparitakayo; mss. °kale, so read. 

P. 35, 1.23; I vs 95. bhavanty akaranavasena; mss. bhavanti ka°, perhaps 
to be kept? 

P. 40, 1. 2; I § 353. mss. add kartum (« vihitum or °tam) after drabdhih; 
ed. omits the word without reason. 

P. 40, 1.10; I § 863. vijfiapyase, svamina; « mss. “natn; the correct 
reading is that of 6, vijiiapyah svami (punctuation after, not before, the 
last word). 

P. 48, 1.12; I § 394. velaplavanan; read with mss. °plavanan. 

P. 45, 1.14; I § 423. matinivarito; mss. omit mati; so read. 

P. 52, 1.2; I § 471. mitravisesatah; mss. « °visesah, ( °vislesah; read 
the latter. 

P. 55, 1.8; 1 § 501. namaikah sarthavahasuto yah; read with R nama 
yah sartha®; other mss. namaikah &c. without yah. 

P. 60, 1.9; I § 570. bhojane; read with mss. °natn; see p. 96 above. 

P. 61, 1. 6; I § 584. vimarsitaih, mss. visarpitarn. Winternitz WZKM. 
25.57 pointed out that the reading of the mss. is correct, and this is 
admitted by Hertel ZDMG. 69. 296. I would add that the Arabic versions 
support the mss. reading. 

P.61, 1.12; 1§585. parardhyagunanindaparo. Read with « mss. parardhya- 
gunaparo (3 °paraguno). Hertel’s emendation spoils the sense, which he 
failed to understand. 


262 Chapter IX: Critical notes on the Tantrakhyayika 


P. 64, 1.7; I1 $6. apasyat tadadhisthanavasinam &c. No ms. has tad, 
which is unnecessary (JAOS. 38. 276). 

P. 65, 1. 21; IT § 23. moksayiteti; read with mss. °yatiti (JAOS. 38, 276). 

P. 67, 1.2; II vs 6. badhyante; mss. badh®. See JAOS. 38. 276. 

P. 67, 11. 18, 19; I § 35. Read with mss. ma tavan mamasya chidyantam 
(all mss. but R chind®). See JAOS. 38. 276. 

P. 67, 1.20; IL § 37. svavyasananapeksam; read with R °sanopeksarn 
(corrected from °sanapeksarn; so other mss. omitting sva). 

P. 67, 1. 23; IL § 39. amuih; mss. ayath, keep (JAOS. 38. 277). 

P. 70, 1.22; IL § 60. tvam in no mss. and not needed; JAOS. 38. 277. 

P. 71, 1.5; IL § 62. pratyayito; mss. pratyarthito, which may be kept as 
the T reading, tho the original undoubtedly read pratyayito; see p. 93f. 

P. 71, 11. 9, 10; IL § 66. Read with ( mss. cittasarngamarn vrddhaye, na 
punar vittam. prabhtitan api &c. See JAOS. 38. 277. 

P. 73, 1.15; IL § 85. punar apy, inserted without ms. authority, should 
be omitted, along with the following aha, which R omits. 

P. 74, 1.6; II § 92. tirthabhitita; read with mss. tirthaptta (P tivra®). 

P. 74, 1.7; IL § 92. °drava® for mss. °dravya®, which keep. JAOS. 38. 278. 

P. 74, 1.14; IL § 96. Sesath suguptain are found in no ms. and are wholly 
unnecessary. 

P. 79, 1.1; If § 141. tad brahmahrdayam yasyasau; mss. « tad brahman 
suvarnam, yasyasau (so read); & hrdayasyapy asau for yasyasau. 

P. 79, 1.10; IL § 145. akhyane; read with mss. °te. 

P. 79, 1.17; IL § 151. mamadyaiigulakasyapy utpatane; mss. « °kasyot- 
patane (so read), $ °kasyadyutpa® or °kasyabhyutpa® 

P. 82, ll. 3—4; IL § 154. yat; read with mss. yas. See JAOS. 38. 278. 

P. 86, 1.18; IL vs 53. "nubandhat; read with mss. ’nubandhah. See p. 94 ff. 

P. 87, 1. 25; II § 169. hy ayanti; read with « kya yanti (f to same 
effect). See p. 124. 

P. 88, 1. 7; II vs 61. paurusae ca parihinam; read with « paurusavihinam 
(8 purusaparihinam). 

P. 97, 1. 20; IL § 188. citraiigah; read with mss. °ga. 

P. 98, 1.7; II § 195. kilasaktacarma®; read with § kile ¢ikya® (« kile 
Sakya°). 

P. 101, 1. 10; II § 213. suvarnena; read with a anena (2? varnena). 

P. 102, 1.2; IT § 217. asvasthyam; read with @ dsvasthyam (« dsvastyam). 

P. 103, 1.14; I § 222. niyati; read with mss. niyata. 

P. 104, 1.4; IL vs 81. kasya ... priyasvajanasatngama na syuh: see 
above, p. 260. : 

P. 104, 1.6; I vs 82. pathyatana; read with mss. pathyadhana. 

P. 105, 1.3; IL vs 86. askhalitarn; read with mss. °tas. 

P. 105, 1.7; IL vs 87. visrame; read with mss. °mo. 

P. 105, 1.13; I vs 92. utpadae; read with mss. utpata®. 

P. 108, 1.8; Ill § 6. ultika upalabdhadurgayrttantah; read with mss. 
ultikopalabdha® 

P. 108, 1. 18; III §8. tadvighatayeti; read with mss. R and z (corr.) tad- 
vighato yatha bhavati (2 om bhavati); other mss. (p and r) tadvighato yadi, 


Unfortunate emendations in the text of Tantrakhyadyika 263 


P. 110, 1.12; Ill vs 3. asame asamopanamanam aho mahat kastam. No 
ms. has aho; it should be omitted, with elision of a- in asamo®. 

P. 111, 1.5; IIL § 21. yuddhe; read with mss. °dham. 

P. 113, 1. 23; Il vs 20. na kantim; read with @ na cagamam (so SP, N, 
and so the meter requires); « na kantih. 

P. 114, 1.2; IIT vs 22. na eeechanty ayasomisram; mss, all °ti yaso%, 
which should perhaps be kept, tho I have hesitatingly adopted Hertel’s 
emendation. 

P. 114, 1. 23; Ill vs 29. ayavyayain sadanusnam; read atha vyavasita- 
nujiia; mss. satanusnas. 

P. 115, 1.17; Ill § 27. saphalam; read with R phalavad; other mss. 
phalaih. 

P. 116, 1.11; IIT § 35. °nyatraiva°; read with mss. °nyathaiva®. 

P. 117, 1.15; 111 § 48. mogham drstidigdaharm karoty apadesaksamas ca; 
mss. so’yaih drstadigdahaim karoty avyapadesa® (« apadesa®) ca. Read with 6. 
P. 122, 1.3; III § 89. agatah inserted without ms. authority; omit it. 

P, 122, 1.6; III § 94. desabhiipam; read with mss. °ripam. 

P. 123, 1.2; I] § 101. sthane; read with « sthana- (( sthavara-). 

P. 123, 1.4; IfL § 102. satnnikrstau; read mith mss. °tath. 

P. 125, 1.12; III § 119. svayam; read with « tam; 2 samam. 

P. 125, 1.18; [II § 123. yatam; read with R sthitam (other mss. omit). 

P. 126, 1.4; I[1 $126. sarnpraptau, inserted without ms. authority; omit. 

P. 127, 1.12; Ill § 141. nyavedayan; read with (£ nivedayanti sma; « 
nivedayan. 

P, 128, 1. 24; ILI vs 63. sarvotpattisamrddhasya; read with « and R 
sarvopadhi®; other mss. santopadhi®, mantrausadhi°. 

P. 182, 1.2; HII § 191. eva inserted without ms. authority; omit. 

P. 182, 1.3; IIT § 192. avahasya inserted without ms. authority; omit. 

P. 142, 1.25; IIL vs 107. vidya inserted without ms. authority; omit. 
See p. 98 above. 

P. 149, 1.3; IV $17. apa; read with R agamat; p aha. 

P. 149, 1.5; IV § 18. valivadanakaprityatikrantavelo; read with mss. 
°prityati®. 

P. 149, 1.23; [IV § 27. bahudhaivain; mss. bahu caivain, read so. 

P. 150, 1.2; IV vs 6. kartuh; read With mss. kartuin. 

P. 158, 1.7; V § 29. ca inserted without ms. authority; omit. 


Unfortunate choices made by Hertel between variant manuscript 
readings in the text of Tantrakhyayika.—Following is a list of 
eases in which I should make a different choice between various 
manuseript readings from that made by Hertel in editing the 
Tantrakhyayika. Many of these differences of opinion are due 
to the different views which Hertel and J hold of the relations 
between the Tantrakhyayika manuscripts, and of the relation 
of Tantrakhyayika to other Panticatantra versions. Thus, whereas 
Hertel always tends to prefer Ta to T@ even when the latter 


264 Chapter IX: Critical notes on the Tantrakhydyika 


is supported by other versions, I hold that a reading of any 
T ms. which is supported by other versions is more apt to be 
original than one which is not thus supported, and that in 
general Tg is a rather Letter representative of the T tradition 
than Ta«.—The cases here listed all occur in sections of T which 
correspond to parts of the reconstructed original. References 
are to page and line of Hertel’s editio princeps, and to book 
and section or verse of my reconstruction. 


P. 3, 1.11; KM §1. mihilaropyam; vy. 1. with Jn mahi°, so read. So also 
at the beginning of Book I and II; in spite of some variations in the 
other versions, I believe that the original was everywhere mahi°. 

P. 4, 1.4; KM § 7 ‘’nekasastravikhyatakirtir; read with ( Sisya for 
Sastra, cf. Spl chattrasarnsadi labdhakirtih (tho, to be sure, Pn supports 
the « reading). 

P.7, 1.7; I § 24. tad atra; read tatra with ~, SP, Jn. 

P. 10, 1. 22; I § 49. ca; read hi with @, SPa, Jn. 

P. 11, 1.14; 1 § 57. svamin, padinam; read svamipadanam with 6 (e/. 
H, Jn devapadanar). 

P. 13, 1.10; I vs 44. Sastrai sastrain; transpose these words with {, SP, 
N, H, Pa. 

P. 13, 1.17; I vs 46. bhrtah; read with & bhrtyah (better sense). 

P, 18, 1.19; I vs 47. miisako grhajato ’pi hantavyo ’nupakarakah; read 
with z, R miisika grhajatapi hantavyanupakarini; so essentially Jn. 

P, 14, 1. 20; I § 76. itaS cetah; add ca with v. 1. 

P. 14, 1. 22; I § 78. °hrdayah; add ca with B, SP. 

P. 15, 1.9; 1 § 87. pratinivartitum asakto ’ntarlinardhakayo vihasya; 
read with (@ pratinivrtyantarlinam avahasya (supported in sense by SP). 

P.15, 1.15; I$ 94. atyantasvakarabhinyastah; so 8. Read either “svakara° 
with a, or °svakara®. The word is kara or kara, ‘tax’; Hertel misunder- 
stands it. The Kautiliya text has here karabhinyastah. 

P. 16, 1.18; I § 106. ca; omit with 6, Jn. 

P. 17, 1.14; I § 122. tad atra: read tatra with R, Jn, Hp. 

P, 23, 1,11; I § 205. After praksipamah add with § iti, tatraiko ’bravit 
(supported in sense by Pa). In the same line after dsadya add atra with 6, 
pare Sth 

P. 23, 1.12; 1 § 205. kathayam asuh, omit with 6 (it is pleonastic). 

P. 24, 1.3; 1§ 214. enam; read with @ etam, since the word is emphatic 
(first in the sentence, and followed by api). 

P. 24, 1.17; 1 § 224. -atravasake; read with @ -asyavase, of which reading 
Hertel says “eine Anderung, die nicht zum Schlu8 der Erzihlung pabt.” 
It is true that it does not fit the conclusion of T, in which the crow 
deposits the ornament in its own nest, not in the snake’s hole. But all 
other versions make the place of deposit the snake’s hole, which is a priori 
better; and it seems to me that T'é’s reading at this point indicates an 


Unfortunate choices between variant manuscript readings 265 


original agreement with the rest. Tx has changed asya to atra to make 
it fit the altered conclusion of 'T’. 

P. 25. 1.10; I vs 63. abudhasya; read abuddhes tu with v.1. of &; ef. 
SP, N, H, Jn nirbuddhes tu. 

P. 25, 1.17; I § 241. ubhayopadravah; read with @ ubhayata upa’. 

P. 26, 1.3; I § 247. See p. 261 above. 

P. 27, 1.16; I vs 67. tu; read ca with $, Pn. 

P. 27, 1. 24; I vs 68. svanurakto; read sva° with «, Pn. 

P. 28, 1.2; 1 § 269. A sentence found in & and Jn is omitted in the 
edition with a; read with §. | 

P. 28, 1.5; I § 270. me; read mama with 8, SP, H, Jn. 

P. 30, 1.17: I § 286. Before krmayah add ca with 6, Pn. 

P. 31, 1.4; I § 288. After rajfias, add grhe with 6; Pn vasagrhe. 

P. 31, 11. 10, 11; I § 295. iha, mansany, and (1.11) ca, to be omitted 
with $8, Jn. “ Blood,” not “meat” or “flesh,” is what a flea wants. 

P. 35, 1. 23; I vs 95. romodgamah; read with 6 rosod°. 

P. 38, 1.5; I vs 110. slisyantime, so TS and SP ed. with 6; read with 
Ta, SPa, N, Pn klisyantime (SP« °ty ete). 

P. 39, 1.14; I § 346. abhyudgamam; read with 6, Pn °dyamam. 

P. 39, 1.18; I § 350. tada tena®; read with ~, Pn tadanena®. 

P. 40, 1.10; 1 $363. vijfiapyase. svamina (« Cnain); read with (6 vijfiiapyah 
svaml, 

P. 40, ll. 16,17; I vs 116. mahapradhanam, sarvapradhanesv; read with 
most mss. and SP, N, H mahapradanain,—with all mss. except P and all 
other versions sarvapradanesyv. 

P, 41, 1.12; 1 § 376. akalpakayo; read with all mss. but P, and SP, 
So, Jn, alpakayo (SP, So, Spl svalpa®). 

P. 41, 1.18; I § 877. Add evam after gomayur with (, SP. 

P. 41, 1.16; 1 § 380. akalpakayo; read with all mss. but p alpa°, supported 
in sense by SP. 

P, 42, 1. 17; I vs 120. karyakaryany; read *karyam with 6, SP, 
N, Jn. 

P. 43, 1.9; I § 390. Add kasmingcit after asti, with (, Jn. 

P. 43, 1.14; I § 896. Add na at end of line, with 8, Pn; this seems to 
be required by the sense, which is at least poorer without it. 

P. 44, 1.13; I § 406. Add pathi after punas with £, supported by Ks 
and in sense by other versions. 

P. 45, 1.11; I § 421. matsyabandham; read °bandhanai with (, Pn. 

P. 45, 1.16; I § 426. Add saparijanair before matsya® with 6 (Pn pari- 
janasametair). 

P. 46, 1.7; I § 436. 8 adds mama (cf. Pn me) before manda®, and after 
it a phrase supported in sense by the other versions. Read so. 

P. 46, 1.10; I § 439. °vigrahaya; read °vigrahasya with £, Pn. 

P. 46, 1.12; I § 441. °rana®, visnuna; read with 8, Pn °saihgraima® and 
narayanena. 

P. 51, 1. 22; I § 470. Add svamino before nico® with (, Pn. 

P. 52, 1.5; 1 § 472. kuvikalpam; read viviktam with (, SP, Pn. 


266 Chapter IX: Critical notes on the Tantrakhyadyika 


P. 52, 1.15; I vs 144. kalusena (so Tx, SPa, N); read kapatena with T§, 
SP ed. (@), Pn, and apparently Pa. 

P. 52, 1.24: I vs 146. Sasaikasya (a, with N); read sasankasya with §, 
SP, Pn.—vyomny eva with «; read nimnaiva with @ (Pn nimnasya, SP, 
N nicaiva). See above, p. 109. 

P. 53, 1.19; I § 482. Omit mahan with £ and all other versions. 

P. 54, 1.2; 1 § 489. varyamano; read ni-vare with ~, Pn. 

P. 55, 1.13; 1 § 508. sahaparasatamhn; read sah&paraih sa° with ~, Pn. 

P. 56, 1.7; 1 $522. atravyavaharadinaranam; read with 6 atra vyavahare 
(z Crarn) di°. 

P. 56, 1.14; I § 532. tatha ca; read with 6, Pn sadhu cedam ucyate. 

P. 58, 1.17; 1 § 556. vansah; read with &, Pn svavansah (cf. SP svakulam). 

P. 59, 1.6; I $558. Add tava before caritena, with ms. P (of «) and 
LEE ahi 

P. 62, 1.13; I vs 172. bhrtyah; read with a(!), SP, N, H, Pn bhrtyah. 

P. 64, 1.8; 11 § 6. paksibandham; read with « paksibandhasavaram (with 
corruptions in mss.), ef. Pn paksibandhanimittai...vyadham. 

P. 64, 1.15; II § 12. itas cetah; add ca with 8, 

P. 68, 1. 1; IL § 39. tat sadhu nayata (so a, with y. |. na | yata); read 
with & tac casadhu, yata. 

P. 69, 1.5; IL § 56. Add maya after saha with f, SP. 

P. 71, 1.2; II vs 22. cas read tu with £, SP, N, H, Pn: 

P. 73, 1.1; I1-§ 80. ca tat; read gatah with 6, Pn; cf. SP, Spl gatva. 

P. 73, 1.14; II § 85. Insert sa aha with ms. R. 

P. 74, 1.2; II § 90. Considerable insertion of 8 (see note in ed.) sup- 
ported by Jn, Pa, should be put in text. 

P. 79, 1.9; Il § 144. ptirvakhyate sesam; read with 6 °tam asesam. 

P. 79, 1.14; IL vs 30. bhavaty arthena balayan; read with ( arthena 
balavan bhavaty; so SP, N, H, Jn except sarvo (hy, or py) for bhavaty. 

P. 81, 1.15; IT vs 35. Read this line with @ (slightly corrupt), SP, N, 
H, Pn. See p. 110f. 

P. 82, 1. 12; Il vs 38. mriyamanasya cihnani yani tany eva yacatah; 
read with & mri° yany eva tani cihnani ya°. SP, N closer to this than to 
the reading of T ed. 

P. 85, 1.4; II § 162. Add yastya before sirasy with 8, Pa. 

P. 86, 1.7; Il vs 50. Add jagati before jantoh with @, N, H, and best 
ms. of SP. 

P. 87, 1.15; Il vs 57. Transpose dantah kesa, with 8, SP, N, H, Pn. 

P. 87, 1.17; If $168. Add kascit after satim with @, Pn. 

P. 88, 1.15; II vs 63. paribhavavasain; read °padaii with 8, SP, N, H, Pn. 

P. 91, 1.14; Il vs 68. tad ananyatha; read na tad anyatha with 8, SP, 
N, H. 

P. 95, 1. 24: II vs 70, prikkarmayati®; read with « prakkarma prati. 

P. 94, 1. 14; II vs 73. jivanti nityan purusis; read with £2, Pn ji® te 
satpurusas. 

P. 94, 1.19; Il vs 74. lobhena hrt°; read with 8 lobhopahrt® (Pn lobho- 
pahat®). 


iS ar J 
Unfortunate choices between variant manuscript readings 267 


P, 95, 1.2; If vs 76, va; read with 6 ’pi. 

P. 98, 1.5; If § 194. manthara; read with «, R mantharaka. 

P. 98, 1.6; Il $194. tad upalabhyatam utplutya (subject in accus.!); 
read with $ tad upalabhasvotplutya. 

P. 98, 1.10; 11 $197. Add with 8 pasachedanakarmanah after anabhijfiah. 

P. 99, 1.18; IL § 203. anabhijfio; read with 6, Pn abhijfio. 

P. 99, 1.14; IL § 204. Add na before vartate with 8, SP, Pn. 

P. 101, 1.6; If § 212. Add gandha after bhojana with 6, Pn. 

P. 101, 1.7; Il § 212. °drava°; read °dravya® with «, see JAOS. 38. 
278, 286. 

P. 102, 1.9; IL $220. Add idam before abhihitam with £, Pn. 

P. 102, 1.11; IL § 220. ato; read nato with 6. See JAOS. 38. 286. 
P. 104, 1.15; IL vs 84. nirantarath; read °ra- with 8, Pn (SP, N nirat- 
yaya-). 

P. 104, 1.18; IL § 232. caranavakrstain; read with { caraniiv apakrsya 
(Pn °naiv akrsya). 

P. 105, 1.4; II vs 86. hi; read ca with f, Pn. 

P. 105, 1. 8; II § 234. Passage in { (see note in ed.) should be put in 
text; supported by Spl and Pa. 

P. 106, 1.7; Il § 236. Passage in f (see note in ed.) should be put in 
text; supported by Pn and Pa. 

P. 106, 1. 14; IL § 240. Add with @ sighratararh before yasyati (supported 
in sense by H, Spl, Ar). 

P. 106, 1.15; 11 § 242. Add with 8, Pn anyaec ca before abhyasopagate. 

P. 108, 1.7; ILI ¢ 4. vayasah; read vayasarajah with z corr., R, and 
SP, Jn (cf. So kakarajah, Ks vayasadhipatih). 

P. 108, 1.9; Ill § 6. Add kakanam after tesarn, with «, supported by SP. 

P. 110, 1.10; III § 18. aranya-; read with @ aranye (better sense). 

P. 113, 1. 23; III vs 20. kantim (em. for « kantih); read cagamam with §, 
SP, =N: 

P. 115, 1.17; II § 27. asatkarnam; read with « sat®. 
.117, 1.8; Ill $42. Add atha before asaiv with $, Jn. 
. 117, 1.15; IIL § 43. apadesa°; read with 6 avyapadesa®. 
. 118, 1.4; IIL § 49. prerita; read presita(h) with #, SP, Pn. 
. 118, 1.18; III vs 38. arthad; read arthan with $, Pn. 

P.119, 1. 8; II vss 41 and 42. These vss of @ omitted in ed. but should 
be put in the text. The first is supported by Pn and Pa (and $o?), the 
second by Pn. ; 

P. 119, 1.10; III § 61. asSakyam anena; read with R asakyo ‘nena. 

P. 120, 1.1; III § 64, and vs 44. § corruptly represents original, with 
support in SP, H, Pa; ed. with « omits. See p. 111 ff. 

P. 120, 1.18; III § 72. Add eko after bhavan with 8; Jn ekaki. 

P. 122, 1.3; [11 § 90. Add with $ sentence omitted in ed. (see note), but 
supported by Jn, Sy (Hertel misunderstands the meaning). 

P. 123, 1.2; Ill § 101. upaslista-; read with ( °tau. 

P. 123, 1.7; M11 vs49. kadacid api sadhubhih; read with 8 ma no dharmo 
hato yadhit, supported (with varying corruptions) by SP, N. 


tee 


268 Chapter IX: Critical notes on the Tantrakhydyika 


P. 124, 1.11; III $112. Add maya before simanye with {, Jn. 

P, 125, 1. 7; III § 116. sammpradhairyatam, yeneha nagacchanti; read 
with (, seemingly supported by Pa, satnpradharyadhuna yavat te (v. |. 
yavanto) ’sman prati sarhnipataya nehagacchanti. 

P. 126, 1.17; III § 133. Add me before or after kimmeid, with 6, Pn. 

P.127, 1.11; 111§140. mandamandaih; read mandar-mandam with §, Jn, So. 

P. 129, ]. 2; TIT § 155. Add apy after satrur with 6. 

P. 163 f. (Appendix IJ); II vs 65 ff., with Story 6. Omitted in ed. with ; 
read essentially with 2, supported by all other versions. See p. 63, note 6. 
P. 129, 1.17; TIT $176. goyugalam; read goyugam with 6, SP, Pn. 

P. 130, 1.2; III § 181. pratibudhyeta; probably read with 6, SP prati- 
budhyate, in spite of Pn budhyeta. 

P. 130, 1. 7; III § 189. anyae ca (a, z); read with R, Pn api ca. 

P. 132, 1.2; III § 191. sa (z, p); read so ‘py with R, SP. 

P. 133, 1.5; IIIT § 212. Add with 6 miilotkhataya after sarvatha; Pn 
mulotkhata vayam. 

P. 134, 1. 8; TIL § 227. Speech of ascetic in ( (see note in ed.) omitted 
in ed. with «, but supported in sense by Jn and Pa. 

P. 134, 1.15; IIL § 231. Add bhagavanl after api with §, SP. 

P. 135, 1.9; III § 243. svavinasay°; read with 6, Pn svavansavinasily°®. 

P. 185, 1.15; Ill § 248. Add krtaharavihara after Colika, with 6: 
supported in sense by SP, Pn. 

P. 136, 1.19; III § 259. ’tivahitah; read nitah with 2, Spl, Ks; Pn yapitah. 

P.137,1.2; U1 vs79. valayaranitau; read °racitau with #; Pnracitavalayaih. 

P. 138, 1.14; III vs 90. upayati na nitidosah; read with R °yanti, with 
°dosah, both supported by SP, N, Pn. 

P. 1388, 1.15; III vs 90. kith; read kash with B, SP, N, Pn. 

P.138, 1.16; IIL vs 90. strikrte; read °ta with R, N; Pn svikrta, SP strigata. 

P. 139, 1.8; TI § 270. Add ratrau after adya with 6, SP, Pn, Pa. 

P. 139, 1. 8; ITI $$ 271, 272. Passage of — (see ed. note), supported by 
Pn and Pa, should be put in text. 

P. 139, 1.11; III $276. Passage of 8 (see ed. note), supported by SP, 
Pn, Pa, should be put in text. | 

P. 148, 1.7; IV § 5. tenaharena; ms. R tatphalaharena, supported in 
sense by SP, Ks. 

P. 152, 1.9; IV $50. Add after “abravit (6 °aha) a sentence found in / 
(see ed. note), largely supported by other versions, especially So. 

P. 153, 1.4; IV § 62. pratidinam; read with § pratidivasaih jivami; the 
verb seems required by the sense. 

P. 167f. (Appendix IV, end of Book IV); IV vss 20, 21, §§ 84, 85. Passage 
of § omitted in ed. with a, but supported by Pa. See p. 111 above. 

P. 156, 1. 9; V § 8. Sentence of & (see ed. note) should be added in text: . 
supported by SP, and ¢f. Pa. 

P, 157, 1.5; V §15. See note in ed.; variant of & supported in sense 
by Pa (ten goats instead of twenty). Read with §. 

P. 157, 1.10; V $19. °vapanam; read with « °vapanam (first suggested 
by ‘Thomas, and accepted by Hertel, WZAM. 25. 23). 


THE PANCHATANTRA RECONSTRUCTED 


TRANSLATION 


NOTE 


Parentheses enclose parts of the translation which cannot be attributed 
to the original with entire confidence. In other words, they correspond to 
parentheses used in the Text (Volume I), so far as this is possible in the 
translation. 

Square brackets enclose matter added by the translator to make the meaning 
clearer to western readers. 

The numbering of sections and of verses (that is, of translations of San- 
skrit verses) follows that of the text; see introduction to Volume I, That is: 
numbers enclosed in parentheses indicate the prose sections of the original 
Text into which I have divided it for convenience of reference; numbers 
out of parentheses indicate what are, in the original, verses. The (paren- 
thetized) numbers of the prose sections of the original precede the sections 
to which they refer; the numbers of the verses of the original follow the 
translations of the verses to which they refer. Each verse of the original is 
made to form a separate paragraph in the translation. 


INTRODUCTORY SECTION 


To Manu, to Vacaspati, to Sukra, to Paragara and his son. 
and to Canakya the wise—to [these] authors of the books of 
the science of kingship be homage.' 1. 

(Visnusarman has mastered the cream of all the treatises on 
the science of polity in the world; and he too has composed 
a fascinating treatise in these five books. 2.) 

(1) (Thus runs the account of it.) There was in the south 
country a city named Mahilaropya. (2) There dwelt a king 
named Amarasakti.2 He was a Tree-of-Wishes granting the 
desires of all suppliants. His feet were illumined by a flood of 
radiant beams from the crown jewels of noble kings [who 
bowed before him]. He was completely skilled in all the arts 
(and verst in all the science of polity). (3) And he had three 
sons, named Vasusakti, Ugrasakti, and Anekasakti,? who were 
utter fools. (Now) when the king saw that they were ignorant 
of (political) science, he called his ministers and took counsel 
with them. (4) “(Sirs, you know already that these my sons 
are utter fools.) 

What profit is there in the birth of a son, if he be neither 
wise nor virtuous? What carn a man do with a cow which 
neither gives milk nor calves? 3. 

Better a miscarriage; better no intercourse whatsoever at 
the proper seasons; better a stillborn child; nay, better even 
that a daughter be born; better a barren wife; better to enter 


' Manu, reputed author of the most famous Hindu law-book; Vac aspati 
“Lord of Speech,” a title of Brhaspati, preceptor of the gods; Sukra, 
preceptor of the demons or Asuras; Parasara was the father of Vyasa, the 
reputed compiler of the Vedas and the Mahabharata; Canakya, minister of 
the famous emperor Candragupta and reputed author of the Kautiliya 
Arthasastra (see page 274, note 2). 

> “God-might.” 

* Roughly, “God-might,” ‘Terrible-might,” and “Manifold-might.” 


272 Introductory section 


upon the homeless [mendicant] state of life—than a foolish 
son, tho he were handsome, rich, and powerful. 4. 

(5) By what means, then, may their intelligence be awakened ?” 
(6) (At this some of them said: ‘Sire, it is well known that 
the study of grammar requires twelve years; then, if that be 
in a measure mastered, after it the systematic study of religion, 
polity, and love* may be taken up. So this is a sore task even 
for intelligent folk; how much more for the dull-witted!) (7) 
(Now) in matters like this there is a brahman named Visnusarman, 
who knows all (the facts of) the science of polity (, and whose 
fame is spread abroad by his many pupils. Summon him and 
let him take charge of the princes).” (8) (This plan was adopted, 
and a minister summoned Visnusarman, who came and saluted 
the king with a benediction after the manner which brahmans 
employ, and took his seat. And when he was comfortably 
seated the king said to him:) (9) (“‘ Brahman, I beg you to do 
me the favor of making these ignorant princes second to none 
in the science of polity, and I will requite you with a sum of 
money.’’) (10) (Thus spoke the king; but) Visnusarman (arose 
and) said (to the king): (11) ‘“‘Sire, (hear this my lion’s roar!® 
I make this statement not as one covetous of money; and since 
I am eighty years of age and my senses are all dulled, the 
time for me to enjoy wealth is over. But in order to help you 
I will undertake this as a trial of intellectual skill. So let this 
day be written down!) (12) If within the space of six months 
~I do not make your sons completely verst in the science of 
polity, then, Sir, you may (show me the door® and) banish me 
(to a distance of a hundred hastas’).” (13) When the king 
(and his ministers) heard this (unbelievable promise on the 
part of the brahman), in delight (and astonishment) he gave 


* The Hindus regard these three subjects as including all possible human 
desires. Under artha, translated here “polity,” they include worldly success 
of all kinds. 

® A common expression in India for a triumphant, confident, or exulting 
declaration. 

® Literally, “the way.” 

7 A measure of length, about 18 inches. It seems that a longer distance 
(if any specific distance) should be mentioned, unless it is meant to be 
humorous, which is hardly likely. Only one of the versions names any 
distance. 


: > 
Introductory section 273 


over the princes to Visnusarman with all deference. (14) (But) 
the latter began to teach the king’s sons the science of polity 
under the guise of stories, for which purpose he composed 
Five Books (entitled The Separation of Friends, The Winning 
of Friends, The Story of the Crows and the Owls, The Loss 
of One’s Gettings, and Hasty Action). 


(Here ends the Introductory Section.) 


Edgerton, Paficatantra. II. 18 


BOOK I 


THE SEPARATION OF FRIENDS, OR, THE LION 
AND THE BULL 


(1) Now here begins this, the first book, called the Separation 
of Friends, of which this is the opening stanza: 

A great and growing love between a lion and a bull in the 
forest was destroyed by an over-greedy and malicious jackal. 1. 

(2) The king’s sons said: “How was that?” Visnusarman 
told this story: 

(3) There was in the south country a city named Mahilaropya. 
(4) There dwelt a merchant named Vardhamanaka,’ who had 
gained great wealth by lawful means. (5) One time this thot 
occurred to him: “Even tho I possess great wealth, I must 
increase my fortune. And it is said: irda 

When a man has not got wealth, he should seek to get it; 
when he has got it, he should guard it watchfully; when he 
has guarded it, he should be forever increasing it; when he has 
increast it mightily, he should bestow it on worthy persons. 2. 

(6) ‘Get wealth when you have it not; guard what you have 
got; increase what you have guarded; and bestow on worthy 
persons what you have increast;’? this is what we are told to 
do. (This is the way to live in the world.) (7) Now if a man 
gets no wealth, he has nothing. But even if he has got wealth, 
unless it be guarded, it is straightway lost (, for many are the 
dangers to it). And if wealth be not increast, even tho used 
sparingly, it wastes away like eye-pigment. [Yet] if it be not used 
(when occasion arises), itis the same as if it were not gained. 
(8) (Therefore a man should guard, increase, and use what he 
has got.) And it is said: 

* Or Vardhamana. The name means approximately “Thrifty.” 


* The quotation is from the so-called Kautiliya Arthasastra, a book on 
the ‘“‘Science of Polity,” attributed to Canakya; see page 271, note 1. 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 275 


Of goods that are acquired, distribution is the one true means 
of preservation; it is like an outlet-drain for waters pent up — 
within the belly of a pond.” 3. 

(9) Thus reflecting he collected a load of wares for Mathura 
and departed (from the city on a trading journey, on an 
auspicious day, and after taking leave of the elders of his 
family). (10) And he had two draft-bulls harnest to the front 
of his wagon-pole. Their names were Nandaka and Sarhjivaka.? 
(11) Now as he proceeded he came to (a place in) a great jungle 
where the water of a mountain waterfall came tumbling down 
(, falling from a great distance,) and formed a muddy spot. And 
(as luck would have it, it chanced that one of these bulls,) Sarjt- 
vaka, because he hurt one leg (, getting stuck) in the muddy place, 
and because the load on the wagon was too heavy, sank down, 
breaking the yoke. (12) And when the merchant Vardhamanaka 
saw him, he was deeply distrest. And when he had waited for 
three days and the bull did not recover, (13) he appointed 
guards for him and continued his journey into foreign parts 
(as he had planned it; for he was aware that the jungle was 
full of perils and wisht to save the rest of the caravan). (14) 
But on the next day the cowardly guards (, who had charge over 
the bull, also) came after him and said to him, falsely: ‘“(Sir,) 
yonder Sainjivaka is dead (and we have burned him and per- 
formed the other rites of burial).”” (15) (And when the merchant 
heard this, out of gratitude [for the bull’s services] he made 
the offerings for the dead in his honor, and went on.) (16) But 
Sathjivaka was not fated to die yet. The cooling winds, mingled 
with spray [from the waterfall], refresht his body; he made 
shift to get up, and (little by little) made his way to the bank 
of the Jumna. (17) (And) there he ate the emerald-green grass- 
tips and roamed about at will, and in a few days his frame be- 
came (well-conditioned and) plump, and he regained his strength, 
and his hump became fat as Siva’s bull; and he remained there, 
every day tearing open the tops of the ant-hills with the strokes 
of his pointed horns, and bellowing loudly. 

(18) Now in this forest (and at no great distance) there was 
a lion named Piigalaka.* Attended by all the beasts, he enjoyed 

3 Approximately ‘“ Rejoicer” and ‘“ Enlivener.” 


4 “Tawny.” 
18% 


276 Book I: Separation of Friends 


the fruits of kingship in the forest, won by his own prowess 
(, and carried his head high, knowing no fear). And thus [it 
is sald]: 

The king of beasts lives in solitude in the forest; he has 
not the emblems of royalty and knows not the science of 
polity; yet—so noble is his spirit—he is the fit object of 
laudations declaring him a true king. 4. 

No coronation, no consecration is performed by the beasts 
for the lion; his power is acquired by his own prowess, and 
the kingship of beasts falls to him naturally. 5. 

(19) It came to pass that this lion was thirsty and went down 
to the bank of the Jumna for a drink of water. (20) And 
(while he was yet a great way off) he heard Satnjivaka’s roar, 
which was unlike anything he had heard before (and seemed 
like an unseasonable clap of the thunder that comes at the 
dissolution of the world). (21) And when he heard it his heart 
was terror-stricken, and (without drinking of the water, but) 
dissembling his mien, he stopt still (in the neighborhood of 
the Fig-tree of the Circles, taking the position of the Four 
Circles,® without saying a word). (22) (Now the position of the 
Four Cireles is as follows. The Circles are the Lion, the Lion’s 
Retainers, the Kakaravas, and the Kivrttas. Of these, the 
lion alone is local ruler in all the places of the country— 
villages, towns, cities, settlements, farming and mountain 
hamlets, parks, villages granted to brahmans, woods, and 
forests. There are a certain number of Lion’s Retainers, who 
are the office-holders. The Kakarava-groups are the middle 
classes. The Kuihvrttas, of course, are those that occupy other 
positions.) (23) Now this [lion] had two hereditary ministers, 
jackals, named Karataka and Damanaka.® (24) (And they two 
held a consultation together.) At this time Damanaka said (to 


° Nothing is known of these “Four Circles” except what appears from 
this passage. Apparently they are supposed to be social divisions among 
the inhabitants of the lion’s kingdom. They are perhaps conceived as 
corresponding vaguely to the four main castes of Hindu society, tho the 
correspondence is certainly far from perfect. The words kakarava (“having 
a crow’ voice”) and kimhvrita (“what-become?,” perhaps “miscellaneous 
groups?”) are wholly obscure in application. 

° The name Damanaka means something like “Victor;” what Karataka 
means is not clear. 


ry 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull.— Story 1: Ape and Wedge 207 


Karataka): “Friend Karataka, (see,) this our lord (Pingalaka) 
started out to get a drink; why has he stopt here?” (25) 
Karataka said: ‘“* What business is that of ours? And it is said: 
The man who tries to concern himself with what is not his 
concern, he it is that lies slain, like the ape that pulled out 
the wedge.” 6. 
(26) Damanaka said: ‘“‘How was that?’’ The other replied: 


STORY 1: APE AND WEDGE 


(27) There was a city in a certain region, and near it a 
certain merchant had begun to build a temple. (28) The 
(master-builders and the other) workmen who were employed 
there went into the city (at noon-time to eat dinner). (29) 
(Now) at that time a beam of (arjuna-)wood had been split 
half way thru (by one of the workmen), and it was left held 
apart by a wedge (of khadira-wood) which was driven into it 
by a mechanical contrivance. (380) And (it chanced that) a great 
crowd of apes, who dwelt in the forest, came to the spot and 
began playing about at random here and there (among the 
tree-tops, the towers of the building, and the piles of wood). 
(31) (But) in the course of this play one (of the apes), whose 
hour of death was at hand, being of a silly disposition, climbed 
upon the beam, so that his testicles hung down into the crack; 
and saying ‘“Who drove this (wedge) in where it doesn’t 
belong?”, he (took hold of it and) began to pull it out with 
his hands. (82) What happened when the wedge came out 
from its place, you know already (without my telling you). 


(End of Story 1) 


(33) “Therefore I say: A man (if he be wise) should shun 
what is none of his concern.” (34) (And again he said:) 
‘Surely you cannot deny that we have enuf to live on, from 
the remains of what [the lion] eats.” (35) Damanaka said: 
‘How, Sir, can you be content with (merely) getting enuf to 
eat? Surely no one enters the service of the exalted except to 
gain distinction. And this is well said: 

To help their friends, and likewise to harm their foes, the 
wise seek royal service. Who cannot supply the mere needs 
of his belly? 7. 


278 Book I: Separation of Friends 


He truly lives, on whose life the lives of many depend. Does 
not even a crane fill his own belly with his beak? 8. And 
again: 

A dirty beef-bone, even with all the meat gone from it and 
nothing left but tiny remnants of sinew and fat, delights the 
dog who gets it; and yet it suffices not to still the pangs of 
his hunger. The lion lets go the jackal that has come within 
his very grasp, and strikes down an elephant. Every one, even 
in time of dire straits, craves benefits that are suited to his 
spirit. 9. 

When one tosses a morsel to a dog, he wags his tail, rolls 
at the feet [of the giver], falls on the ground and turns up 
his face and his belly towards him. But a noble elephant 
preserves a serious mien and eats only after endless coaxing. 10. 

Only that’ man eats well in this world who eats what he has 
earned by skill or prowess. A mere dog, even, can get a morsel 
of food by wagging his tail. 11. 

Real life in this world, the wise say, is only that which is 
lived, perchance only for a brief season, yet known to fame 
among men, and not lacking in wisdom, prowess, or glory. A 
very crow lives a long time and devours the food that is thrown 
to it. 12. 

A small rivulet is easily filled; easily filled are a mouse’s paws. 
Easily contented is a contemptible man; a mere trifle contents 
him. 13, 

His mind is void of discernment between good and evil; he 
takes no part in the many observances prescribed in the Sacred 
Word; he has no desire but the mere filling of his belly; —what 
difference is there between a beast and a beast-of-a-man? 14. 

(The noble ox draws heavy wagons, and eats grass [rather 
than meat]; over hard and easy spots alike he draws the plow; 
he is a benefit to the world, and his origin is pure; these are 
his distinctions over the beast-in-human-form.” 15.) 

(36) Karataka said: ‘But you see we are not in office; (so) 
what have we to do with this business?” (37) Said the other: 
‘“(My friend,) how little time is needed for one who is not in 
office to come into office! (And it is said:) 

"Tis not by the power of any [patron] that one is rated as 
noble or base in this world. Naught but what he does himself 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 279 


brings a man to distinction in this world, or to the opposite 
condition, 16. | 

As a stone is brought to the top of a hill with great labor, 
but is rolled down with ease, so it is with the soul in regard 
to good qualities and faults. 17. 

(38) Therefore, my friend, be assured that every one is depen- 
dent on his own self.” (39) Karataka said: ‘‘Then what do you 
intend to do (in this matter)?” (40) Said he: “It is evident that 
this our lord (Pingalaka) is a coward, and his followers too, and 
that he is dull of wit.” (41) Said the other: “ How do you know, 
Sir?’”’ Damanaka replied: “’Tis easy to know that. It is said: 

A mere beast understands words that are spoken; horses and 
elephants move in response to the whip. The wise man divines 
even what is not exprest; for the fruit of intelligence lies in 
understanding the mien of others. 18. 

(42) Accordingly I shall (catch him in his state of fright 
and) bring him under my control this very day, by the power 
of my wit.” (43) Karataka said: ‘‘My friend, you are ignorant 
of the laws of [royal] service; (so) how will you bring him 
under your control?’’ (44) Damanaka replied: “ My friend, how 
[can you say that] I am ignorant of [royal] service? Surely I 
am skilled in all the principles of courtiership. And it is said: 

What burden is too heavy for the strong? What is distance 
to the resolute? What land is foreign to the learned? Who is 
an enemy to them that speak kindly?” 19. 

(45) Karataka said: ‘‘Perchance our lord may contemn you 
for entering his presence at an untimely moment.” (46) Said 
the other: ‘True; but nevertheless (a courtier dare not fail to 
approach [his lord]. And it is said): 

A king favors only the man that is near’ him, tho he be 
ignorant, of base extraction, and a stranger. Kings, women, and 
creeping vines.as a rule embrace whatever is beside them. 20. 

Servants who are close to the king can discern the causes 
of his displeasure and his grace, and so gradually gain the 
ascendancy over him, even tho he resist them.’? 21. 

(47) Karataka said: “Then what will you say, Sir, when you 
arrive in his presence?” Damanaka said: 

7 The last clause contains a word-play: “gradually climb him [as a tree], 
even tho he shake [in the wind].” 


280 Book I: Separation of Friends 

‘‘Response will spring from response, and from that response 
another speech; just as another seed grows out of a seed upon 
which plenteous rain has bestowed its blessing. 22. (And again:) 

The disaster that follows from the application of bad plans, 
and the success that follows from the application of good plans, 
are connected with the principles of polity, and shine forth in ad- 
vance, so to speak, so that the intelligent can point them out. 23. 

(48) And I shall not speak out of season. 

If Brhaspati® himself should speak an untimely word, his 
intelligence would be despised and he would meet only with 
contempt. 24. 

One who speaks aright never says his say at an unsuitable 
place or time, nor before one of immature faculties or without 
excellence. This is why his words are not spoken in vain, 29. 
And again: 

A good quality by which one gains his livelihood, and for 
which he: is praised in publie by the good,—such a quality 
should be tended and increast by him who possesses it.” 26. 

(49) Karataka said: ‘ But it is hard to win the favor of kings. 
They are like mountains; for they are always harsh [punningly, 
of mountains, rugged] by nature, and surrounded by vicious men 
[crowded with beasts of prey], (and they are on the lookout for 
faults [they are explored thru clefts],) and they make use of 
fraud [they harbor treacherous monsters?]. (Because :) 

(Kings are like snakes, in that they are luxurious [punningly: 
they have coils], and are covered with armor [snake-skins]; 
they are savage, and act [move] crookedly; they possess nostrils 
[hoods, of serpents], and can be managed by good counsel [by 
snake-charms].” 27.) 

(50) Said the other: ‘This is true. Nevertheless: 

If men are only shrewd enuf, they may even serve kings, 
eat poison, and dally with women. 28. (And again:) 

Whatever the native disposition of any man may be, the wise 
man, by making use of it, can force an entrance and quickly 
get him into his power.” 29. 

(51) Karataka said: ‘‘Good luck go with you; do what you 
think best.” (52) (Thereupon) Damanaka (took leave of him 
and cautiously) approacht Pidgalaka. (53) Then Pingalaka saw 


* Preceptor of the gods, and god of wisdom. 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 281 


Damanaka coming (while yet afar off) and said to his door- 
keepers: ‘‘ Lay aside your staves of office (without delay). This 
is Damanaka, our hereditary minister of long standing (, who 
is coming); he has the right of entering freely (since he belongs 
to the Second Circle). (54) Then Damanaka approacht and 
bowed and took his seat (in a place assigned him by Pitgalaka). 
(55) And the latter (laid upon him his right hand, adorned 
with claws like thunderbolts,? and) said courteously: (56) 
“(Peace be with you.) It is long since I have seen you. (Why 
is this?)”’ (57) Damanaka said: ‘‘ Your Majesty has had no need 
of my services. And yet, when the time comes, it is not 
permissible (for ministers) to refrain from speaking. (That is 
why I have come.) (58) Because there is no one whom kings 
cannot use in some way or other. And it is said: 

To pick their teeth, O king, or else to scratch their ears, 
princes may make use of a blade of grass; how much more 
of a man, who has a voice and hands! 30. And again: 

The quality of fortitude cannot be destroyed in a man whose 
nature contains it, even tho he be used despitefully. Tho a light 
be turned downwards, its flames never by any chance go down. 31. 

If a serpent, colored like the [dark-blue] cuckoo, or like the 
eyes on a peacock’s tail, or like eye-pigment, be trodden upon 
with the sole of the foot at an inopportune time; and if it fail 
to show its viciousness, having some reason in mind; is it safe 
to believe that it has lost its venom? 32. 

(Therefore, O king:) 

Be ever discriminating in regard to your kingdom and your 
people; for success depends solely on recognition of the 
differences between men. 33. 

(And this is well said :) 

The husbandman may mix all the seeds together and sow 
them; (but) he must judge the goodness of the seeds by the 
sprouts, when they have sprung up. 34. 

(59) Therefore the king must (at all times) be dis- 
criminating. And so: 

Servants and ornaments are to be used only in their proper 
places. For a man does not fasten a erest-gem on his foot, 
simply because he has the power to do so. 35. 

° Or, “hatchets.” 


282 Book I: Separation of Friends 


If a gem worthy to be encased in an ornament of gold be 
set in tin, it makes no complaint and does not cease to be 
resplendent; [but] blame falls on him who uses it so. 36. 

If a king knows how,to distinguish between his servants, 
saying ‘This one is wise, this one faithful, this one both, that 
one foolish’—he gets an abundance of servants. 37. 

If he is levelled with his inferiors; if he fails of the respect 
shown his equals; and if he is unworthily employed;—for these 
three reasons a servant may desert his patron. 38. 

(60) Moreover, we are Your Majesty’s hereditary servants; 
even in adversity we follow you (, for we have no other 
recourse; this is a saying that applies to ministers. And it is 
said): 

What noble man would stay for a single moment where no 
distinction is made between right-hand and left-hand,—if he 
had any other place to go? 39. 

(When a lord makes no distinctions but behaves in the same 
way to [all] his servants, then even the vigorous ones lose their 
energy. 40.) 

The difference between [different] horses, elephants, and 
metals, between woods, stones, and garments, between women, 
men, and waters, is a great difference. 41. 

(Now it is said, in a proverb about distinctions:) 

Surely the fool who aspires to carry a thousand bharas' of 
stone on his shoulders must become weary or die, even as he 
-earries the load, 42. 

[But] when a discriminating man gets a ruby, which is only 
as large as the thick of the thumb, it is easy for him to carry; 
and can he not make great profit therefrom? 43. 

(61) (Therefore differences of character among servants arise 
simply from the qualities of their lords. And how so?) 

A horse, arms, scientific knowledge, a lute, speech, a man 
and a woman are either useless or useful according to 
differences in the men to whom they belong. 44. 

(62) And if you should hold me in contempt because I am a 
jackal, this also would be wrong. For: 

Visnu assumed the form of a boar, the great seer [Rsyasriiga] 
had the form of a deer, and the Six-faced [Skanda, god of war] 


‘© A certain heavy weight; literally, “a load.” 


Fraine Story: Lion and Bull 283 


the form of a goat; are they not honored by the righteous? 45, 
(And again:) 

This is not an invariably sound principle, that a servant born 
in the household and of long standing is always preferable; but 
rather he who is a faithful counsellor. 46. (For thus [it is said]:) 

Tho a mouse is born in the household, it is to be destroyed, 
because it is injurious; while you obtain a cat from strangers 
by offering gifts, because it is serviceable. 47. 

Just as no wood-work can be done with the castor-oil plant, 
or with bhinda or arka plants, or with reeds, tho one collect 
great quantities of them, so there is no way of using fools. 48. 

What is the use of one who is faithful but incompetent ? 
What is the use of one who is competent but injurious? Both 
faithful and competent am I, O King; know me for what I am. 
49, And again: 

If a king is without understanding, it follows that he has 
unintelligent men in his retinue. Then,' because of - their 
dominance, no wise man will appear in his train. Since the 
kingdom is. bereft of wise men, its statesmanship is ineffective. 
And with the loss of statesmanship, the whole tribe goes to 
certain ruin and the king along with it.” 50. 

(63) Pingalaka said: “Friend (Damanaka), speak not thus; 
you are our hereditary minister (of long standing).’”’ (64) 
Damanaka said: “Sire, I have something to say to you.” (65) 
Said he: “Say what you wish.”” Damanaka said: (66) “My lord 
started out to get a drink; (then) why has he stopt (here and 
turned back without drinking of the water, as if startled by 
something)?” (67) Pingalaka, to conceal what was in his mind, 
said: “(Damanaka,) there is no special reason.’ (68) Said he: 
“Sire, if itis something that may not be told, then let it be.” 
(69) (Then) when Pingalaka heard this, he reflected: ‘(He has 
seen thru me, and it appears that) he is a proper person; so 
(why should I conceal anything from this faithful follower?) I 
will tell him what is in my mind.” And he said: (70) (“ Damanaka, 
hear this loud noise that comes from afar!”’ Said he: “ My lord, 
I hear the noise very plainly. What of it?” Pingalaka said:) 
(71) “My friend, I mean to leave this forest, because this 
must be some unheard-of being that has come in here, whose 
loud (and strange) noise we now hear. And the being must be 


284 Book I: Separation of Friends 


of a sort corresponding to the noise, and his prowess must 
correspond to his being.1! Therefore I can certainly not remain 
here.” (72) Damanaka said: “Can it be that my lord has been 
frightened by a mere sovud? (That also is wrong. And further:) 

A dam is destroyed by water; counsel is likewise destroyed 
by not being kept [secret]; friendship is destroyed by back- 
biting; a coward may be destroyed by words. 51. 

(73) So it is not right for my lord to abandon this forest 
that he has possest so long because of a mere sound. (74) For 
sounds of many different kinds are heard here, but they are 
mere sounds and nothing else, and there is no reason for being 
frightened by them. For instance, (we hear sounds) of (thunder 
from the clouds, pipes, lutes, drums, tabors, conch-shells, bells, 
wagons, doors,) engines, and other things; (and) there is no need 
to be afraid of them. And it is said: 

At first indeed I thot: ‘Surely this is full of fat.’ But when I got 
into it, I discovered that it was [nothing but] skin and wood.” 52. 

(75) Pingalaka said: ‘‘How was that?” Damanaka said: 


STORY 2: JACKAL AND DRUM 


(76) Once upon a time there was a jackal whose throat was 
lean with hunger, and who was wandering (about hither and 
yon in the forest in search of food), when he saw a battle- 
ground of two armies. (77) And there he heard a loud noise. 
(78) His heart was smitten with alarm at this, and he thot: 
“(What can this be?) I am lost! (Whence comes this noise? 
And what sort of creature makes it, and where is he?)” (79) 
(Thereupon,) when he made search for it, he found a drum, in 
form like a mountain-peak. (80) And seeing it he reflected: 
“Can this noise be made by that thing of itself, or does some- 
thing else make it?’’ (81) Now as the drum was toucht by the 
tips of (the branches of) a tree waving in the wind, it made a 
noise (, while otherwise it was still). (82) But he went up close 
to it to find out what it amounted to, (83) (and himself struck 
it on both its faces to see what would happen,) (84) and he 
thot: “(Ha! At last) I have found in this thing a fine meal! 
(Surely it must be crammed full of quantities of meat and fat 


! The Sanskrit word translated ‘“ being” contains a kind of word-play; 
it means both “creature” and “nature,” also “ courage,”’ 


Story 2: Jackal and Drum.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull 285 


and blood!)” (85) Then he tore open the face of the drum 
and crawled in. (And the skin was so hard that he almost 
broke his teeth.) (86) But he found not a thing in it. (87) And 
turning back he (laught to himself and) said: ‘‘At first indeed 


I thot,” &e. 
(End of Story 2) 


(88) ‘Therefore (I say:) You should not be afraid of a mere 
noise. (89) (However,) if you think best, I will go where that 
noise comes from and find out all about it.” (90) Pingalaka 
said: ‘Do you really dare go up to it?” ‘Most certainly,’ 
said he. Piigalaka said: “(My friend, in that case) go (, and 
good luck go with you).” (91) Damanaka (bowed to him and) 
started out in the direction of the noise (made by Sarajivaka). 
(92) Now when Damanaka was gone, Pifgalaka’s heart was 
smitten with fear, and he thot: ‘Look, I have not done well 
in putting confidence in this fellow and telling him what was 
in my mind. (93) (Perchance this Damanaka may be disaffected 
towards me and may try double-dealing.) (94) And it is said: ” 
Those who have been honored and are then dishonored, those 
who have been rejected, the resentful, the greedy, the ruined, 
and those who have volunteered their services, (these one can 
ward off by guile. [But]) those who are very poor and opprest 
by taxation, those who have been first invited and then driven 
away, those who have been slighted in regard to a work of art 
or decoration tho they have done equally good work [with 
others who were not slighted], those who have been mortified 
by exile, who have been put in the shade by their equals, from 
whom honors have been withdrawn, also those who have been 
given too many things to do, and aspirants [for the throne] 
from the same family; these do not yield their rights?® even 
in constant association,’ and must be tested in every possible 
way. Now this [Damanaka] may perchance conceive that honors 
have been withdrawn from him, in which case he may be dis- 
affected towards me. Or else, because he is powerless himself, 


% The passage which follows is an inexact quotation from the Kautiliya 
Arthasastra, attributed to Canakya; see page 271, note 1, and page 274, note 2. 

3 Or, “depart from their nature.” 

4 Or, possibly, “at the time of a clash?” 


286 Book I: Separation of Friends 


he might cleave unto the stronger and be neutral towards me. 
(In that case too I should surely be ruined.) (95) So I will 
(certainly) go (from this spot) to another place, until I find out 
what he intends to do.” ‘Thus reflecting he moved to another 
place and remained there (quite alone), looking along the road 
(which Damanaka had taken). (96) But Damanaka went to 
where Sarijivaka was. And when he saw that it was [only] a 
bull, he (was delighted and) went back towards Pingalaka. (97) 
But Piigalaka returned to his former position, to conceal the 
expression of his countenance, thinking: ‘Otherwise this 
Damanaka will think that I am a coward and my followers 
too.” (98) And when Damanaka arrived in the presence of 
Piigalaka, he bowed to him and sat down. (99) Pingalaka 
said: “Well, Sir, have you seen that creature?’ Damanaka 
replied: “I have (by Your Majesty’s grace).’”’ (100) Piftgalaka 
said: “Have you seen him as he really is?’’ Damanaka said: 
‘“Yes.”” (101) Said he: “You have not seen him as he really 
is; for you are a person of no high station, and since you are 
powerless he would not oppose you. Since: | 

The hurricane does not uproot grasses, which are pliant and 
bow low before it on every side. It is only the lofty trees that 
it attacks. A mighty man exerts his prowess only against the 
mighty. 53. (And again:) 

Tho the rutting elephant is assailed upon his temples by the 
feet of the bees as they roam about mad with longing for the 
rut-fluid,?® he does not wax angry at them, in spite of his 
excessive might. The powerful show anger only against their 
equals in power.” 54, | 

(102) Damanaka said: (Why, I knew in advance that my 
lord would say this.) Now, to make a long story short, I will 
bring him in person into Your Majesty’s presence (here).”’ (103) 
(And hearing this) Pingalaka was delighted and said: ‘‘Do so 
at once.” (104) (But) Damanaka went back and spoke insultingly 
to Sathjivaka: (105) “Come here, come here, wretch (of a bull)! 
The Lord Pifgalaka says to you: ‘Why do you make bold to 
keep bellowing constantly for no reason?’’’ (106) (Hearing this) 

© Hindu poetry is full of references to the alleged fact that bees swarm 


eagerly to taste a fluid which is said to exude from the temples of rutting 
elephants, 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 287 


Sainjivaka said: ‘Friend, who is this person Pingalaka (that 
sends this message to me)?” (107) (Then) Damanaka (laught 
in amazement and) said (to him): (108) ‘‘ What! Can it be that 
you do not even know the Lord Pingalaka? (You will know 
him by his fruits!’’ he added ironically.) “Why, the Lord 
Pifgalaka is that (mighty lion, the) king of the beasts, who 
stands attended by all the beasts (near the Fig-tree of the 
Circles, his soul exalted in grandeur). (109) When Satijivaka 
heard this, he thot he was as good as dead, and was plunged 
in deepest despair; and he said: (110) “If I really must come, 
then let me be granted the boon of a safe-conduct.” (111) 
(“Very well,” agreed) Damanaka (, and he) returned to the 
lion and reported the matter to him and got his consent; and 
he conducted Sathjivaka into Pingalaka’s presence (as agreed). 
(112) (And Samjivaka saluted him respectfully and stood modestly 
before him.) (113) And he laid upon him his right hand, (plump, 
round, and long, and adorned with claws like thunderbolts 1° 
in place of ornaments,) and said courteously: (114) ‘‘(Peace be 
with you.) Whence have you come into this uninhabited forest?” 
(115) (In reply to this question) Sathjivaka told all that had 
happened to him before (, how he had been separated from 
the merchant Vardhamanaka). (116) (And) hearing this Pitgalaka 
said: “Friend, fear not; dwell at your pleasure in this wood 
which is protected by my arm. (Moreover, you had best remain 
constantly near me, because this wood is full of dangers, since 
it is crowded with all manner of ferocious beasts.” Sathjivaka 
replied: “As Your Majesty commands.’”’) (117) (When he had 
spoken thus, Piigalaka, attended by all the beasts, went down 
to the bank of the Jumna and drank his fill of water, and 
returned again to his royal residence in that same wood, roaming 
about undisturbed.) (118) Thenceforth (those two,) Pifgalaka 
and Sathjivaka past the time (day by day) in mutually affectionate 
intercourse. (119) And since Sathjivaka had applied his mind 
to the subjects of many sciences, (in a very short time) he 
taught Pingalaka wisdom, altho Pingalaka had previously been 
ignorant (because he was a forest-dweller), (120) (In short, 
every day) Pingalaka and Sathjivaka conferred alone on secret 
‘ matters with one another, and all the rest of the beasts were 


16 Or, “ hatchets.” 


288 Book I: Separation of Friends 


kept at a distance. (121) And there was a dearth of food 
(resulting from the killings of the lion’s prowess), so that (even) 
Karataka and Damanaka (were ravenous with hunger; and 
they) took counsel with one another. (122) Then Damanaka 
said: (Friend) Karataka, (we are ruined. Now what can we do 
in these circumstances?) I myself was responsible for this trouble, 
in that I brought Satinjivaka to Pingalaka. And it is said: 

The jackal by the rams’ fight, and I by Asadhabhiti, and 
the procuress by the weaver:—([these] three afflictions were 
self-eaused.”’ (55) 

(123) Karataka said: “How was that?” Said he: 


STORY 3a: MONK AND SWINDLER 
(124) Ina certain region there was a monk named Devasarman. 
(125) In the course of time he had gained a large fortune thru 
the acquisition of fine garments of excellence, which various 
pious people had presented to him. (126) (And he trusted no 
one.) (127) Now (once upon a time) a thief named Asadhabhiti 
(observed this money, which he carried in his waist-pocket, and) 
meditated: ‘‘How can I steal this money from him?” And he 
presented himself to the monk as a pupil, and in time won his 
confidence. (128) (Now) once upon a time that monk started 
on a journey with this same Asadhabhiti, to make a pilgrimage 
to holy places. (129) And in the course of the journey in a 
certain wooded region he left Asadhabhiti with the money (near 

the bank of a river) and went aside to get water. 


STORY 3b: RAMS AND JACKAL 

(130) (And there by the edge of the water) he saw a (great) 
fight of rams. (131) And as they fought with all their strength 
and without rest, a great quantity of blood flowed from between 
their branching horns and fell upon the ground. A (certain 
foolish) jackal saw this, and (his mind was aroused by the hope 
[of eating it], and in his eagerness for meat) he ran up between 
the two rams (as they separated leaving some distance between 
them), to get at the blood. And when they came together 
(again) he was killed by the shock of their impact. (132) Then 
the monk was filled with amazement, and said: “The jackal 


by the rams’ fight.”’ 
(End of Story 3b) 


Story 3a: Monk and Swindler.—Story 3c: Cuckold Weaver and Bawd 289 


(1383) And (having purified himself) he returned to that place; 
but as for Asadhabhiti, (he had taken the whole pile of money 
and run away, and) Devasarman could not find him. (134) 
(But all he saw was a discarded triple staff, [fire-]wood, a 
water-vessel, a sieve, and a [tooth-]brush.)1" (135) (And he 
reflected: ‘Where is that Asadhabhiti? He must have robbed 
me.” And in great distress) he said: “And I by Asadhabhiti.” 


(End of Story 8a) 


STORY 3c: CUCKOLD WEAVER AND BAWD 


(136) Then that monk (, having nothing left but his half-skull 
[used as drinking-vessel] and the [empty] knot in his robe [in 
which he had carried the money], went off searching for the 
rogue’s tracks, and) as the sun was setting entered a certain 
village. (137) (As he entered) he met a weaver (who lived in 
the edge of the village) and askt of him a lodging for the 
night. (138) And he showed him to quarters in a part of his 
house, and said to his wife: “While I (am gone to town and) 
am drinking liquor with my friends, until I return, do you 
carefully tend the house.” After thus instructing her he departed. 
(139) (Now) his wife was unchaste. And when a procuress 
came and prest her to go, she (donned her adornments and) 
started out to go to her lover. (140) Just then her husband 
came home and met her, his garments awry, with staggering 
gait, and so badly under the influence of liquor that he could 
not speak his words plainly. (141) And when she saw him, 
(with presence of mind) she (deftly took off her adornments 
and) put on her ordinary garb as before, and began to wash 
the feet [of the guest], (prepare his bed,) and the like. (142) 
But the weaver entered the house and began to scold her: 
‘Harlot! My friends have been telling me of your evil actions. 
All right! I will pay you back richly!”’ So saying he beat her 
with blows of a stick until she was black and blue, and tied 
her fast with a rope to the post (in the middle [of the house]), 
and then went to sleep. (143) At this time the procuress, a 


17 All these are implements carried by the brahman-pupil; the swindler 
had assumed them to trick the monk, and after accomplishing his purpose 
had discarded them. 

Edgerton, Paiicatantra. II. 19 


290 Book I: Separation of Friends 


barber’s wife, (when she perceived that the weaver was asleep,) 
came in again and said: “That (fine) fellow is consumed with 
the fire of longing for you, so that he is like to die. (144) So 
I will release you and bind myself in your place; do you (go 
thither and) console him (—you know whom—) and come back 
quickly.” So the barber’s wife releast her from her bonds and 
sent her off to her lover. (145) After this the weaver awoke, 
sobered, and began to scold her in the same way as before. 
(146) But the procuress was frightened, and did not dare speak 
with her strange voice [lest she be recognized], and she held 
her peace. (147) He however kept on saying the same things 
to her. And when she gave him no answer, at last he cried 
out angrily: “Are you so proud that you will not so much as 
answer what I say?” and he arose and cut off her nose with 
a sharp knife, and said: “ Have that for your decoration! Who 
will be interested in -you now?” (148) So saying he went to 
sleep again. (149) Then the weaver’s wife returned and askt 
the procuress: “* What news (with you)? (What did he say when 
he woke up? Tell me, tell me!)” (150) (But) the procuress 
(, who had received the punishment, showed her her nose, and) 
said in an ill humor: ‘‘ You can see what the news is! Let me 
loose and I will go.” (151) She did so, and she departed, taking 
her nose with her. (152) The weaver’s wife (however) arranged 
herself as she had been before, with a semblance of bonds. 
(153) But the weaver awoke and began to scold her in the 
same way as before. (154) Then she said to him angrily and 
reproachfully: “Fie, wicked man! Who could dare to disfigure 
me, a pure and faithful wife? (155) Hear (me), ye Rulers of 
the World-regions!!* As surely as I know (even in my thots) 
no strange man, no one other than the husband of my youth, 
by this truth let my face be undisfigured!” (Having spoken 
thus she said to her husband again:) “O most wicked man! 
Behold my face! (It has become just as it was before!) (156) 
Then that (stupid) man’s mind was bewildered by her tricky 
words. He lighted a lamp, and beheld his wife with her face 
undisfigured. (157) His eyes bulged; (his heart was filled with 
joy, and kissing her) he releast her (from her bonds, and fell 





8 “Tokapalas,” epithet of four (or eight) chief gods as guardians of the 
cardinal (and semi-cardinal) points of the compass. 


Story 3c: Cuckold Weaver and Bawd.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull 291 


at her feet,) and embraced her passionately and carried her to 
the bed. (158) But the monk remained on the spot, having 
seen the whole occurrence (from the very beginning). 

'(159) (And) that procuress, with her nose in her hands, went 
home, thinking: “(What can I do now?) How ean I conceal 
this (great disaster)? ’’ (160) Now her husband, the barber, 
came back home at dawn from another place, and said to his 
wife: (161) “Bring me my razor-case, (my dear;) I have to go 
to work in the king’s palace.” (162) And she did not move 
from the inside of the house, but threw out to him a razor 
only. (163) And because she did not hand him the whole razor- 
case, the barber’s heart was filled with wrath, and he threw 
that same razor at her. (164) Then she raised a (loud) ery of 
anguish, and rubbed her nostrils (with her hand), and threw 
her nose (dripping with blood) on the ground, and said: (165) 
“Help! Help! This (wicked) man has mutilated me, tho he has 
found no fault in me!” (166) Then the policemen came, and 
saw that she was obviously mutilated, (167) and beat the barber 
soundly with blows of their sticks, and (afterwards) bound him 
(firmly) and took him (along with her) to the seat of judgment. 
(168) And the judges askt him: “Why did you maltreat your 
wife thus (cruelly)?” And (when, in spite of repeated questioning, ) 
he made no reply; (169) then the judges ordered that he be 
impaled upon a stake. (170) Now as he was being taken to 
the place of execution, the monk, who had observed the whole 
course of events, saw him, and went to the court and said to 
the judges: (171) “This barber is innocent of wrong-doing; do 
not have him impaled. (For) hear (these) three marvels! 

The jackal by the rams’ fight, and I by Asadhabhati, and 
the procuress by the weaver:—[these] three afflictions were 
self-caused.” 56. 

(172) And when the judges had learned the true facts of the 
case, they spared the barber. 


(End of Story 3c and of the entire third story) 


(173) Therefore I say: ‘‘The jackal by the rams’ fight” &c. 
(174) Karataka said: ‘‘Then what action do you think would 


suit the present case?” (175) Damanaka said: ‘‘(Friend, even) 
19% 


292 Book I: Separation of Friends 


in a ease like this the wise have, after all, the power of saving 
themselves. (And it is said :) 

Counsel that is directed to reviving a lost cause, to gaining 
a future advantage, or te preventing a losing course of action— 
that is the highest counsel. 57. 

(176) Now this Pingalaka is in a state of (serious) evil. (There- 
fore) he must be detacht from this (Sathjivaka). (Because:) 

When a king is so deluded as to become attacht to evil, 
surely his servants must use every effort to save him from it, 
by the means described in [political] science.” 58. 

(177) Karataka said: “In what evil is our lord Pitgalaka? 
(178) For there are seven evils (that pertain to kings) in this 
world. (Namely:) 

Women, dice, hunting, drinking, and harshness of speech 
for the fifth, and serious harshness in punishments, and likewise 
violence to [the] property [of others].” 59. 

(179) Damanaka said: “(My friend,) this is just one evil, 
named Vice (; it has seven forms).”” (180) Karataka said: ‘“ How 
is this just one evil?” (181) Damanaka replied: “(You must 
know that) there are (in this world) five basic evils, namely: 
Deficiency, Tumult, Vice, Affliction, and Bad Policy.” #° (182) 
(Karataka said: “What is the distinction between them?’’ 
Damanaka said:) (183) ‘(Now first among them the evil known 
as) Deficiency is to be defined as occurring when there is a 
deficiency of even a single one of the following: ruler, minister, 
nation, stronghold, treasury, army, or ally. (184) (But) when 
the internal elements or the external elements *° are in a state 
of agitation [against the king], (either one at a time or all at 
once,) that evil is (to be known as) Tumult. (185) Vice has 


19 What follows, thru § 188, is a technical disquisition on political science, 
based on the same material that is found in the first part of the eighth 
book of the Kautiliya Arthasastra, attributed to Canakya. 

*° Hertel takes the “elements” (prakrti) to refer to the list just mentioned 
in § 183 (ruler, minister, &c.). These are, however, with the possible exception 
of the “ally,” only the “internal” elements (of the state). Besides these 
there are the “external” elements, namely the corresponding elements of 
the hostile, ‘‘middling” (madhyama) and “neutral” (uddasina) states, and of 
the ally (mitra) and “ally’s ally” of each of these, making a total of seventy- 
two political elements or prakrtis. This is set forth in the Kautiliya Arthasastra, 
Book 6, Chapter 2 (1st ed, page 259). That the hostile state is included 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 293 


been already explained above (in the verse ‘ women, dice, hunting,’ 
&¢c.). OF these ‘women, dice, hunting, and drinking’ constitute the 
group [of vices] that are due to pleasure, while ‘harshness of 
speech’ and the rest constitute the group that are due to wrath. 
One who is freed from those that are due to pleasure may become 
entangled in those that are due to wrath. The group of those due 
to pleasure is very easy to comprehend. (186) But I shall [now] 
define the three varieties that are due to wrath. If one is inclined 
to hate others and is given to reciting their (failings and) 
faults (heedlessly), that is harshness of speech. The merciless 
application of the penalties of death, imprisonment, and 
mutilation, (when they are not called for,) is harshness in 
punishments. Relentless grasping after [the] possessions [of 
others] is violence to property. Such is the seven-fold evil of 
Vice. (187) Affliction (however) is eightfold: it comes from 
accident [‘fate’], fire, water, disease, pestilence, cholera, famine, 
or fiendish rain. Excessive rain (or lack of rain [?]) is what is 
called fiendish rain. So this is what is to be understood by 
(the evil of) Affliction. (188) (Now I shall explain) Bad Policy. 
When there is erroneous application of the six forms of policy, 
that is, peace, war, march, waiting policy, alliance with a 
powerful helper, and double dealing; when one makes war at 
a time appropriate to peace, or peace at the time for war, or 
when in like manner he runs counter to any other of the six 
forms of policy: (then) that is (to be understood as) the evil 
of Bad Policy. (189) Therefore this Pingalaka must by all means 
be detacht from Sathjivaka. (For if there is no lamp, there 
can be no light.)”’. (190) Karataka said: “ You have no power; 
(so) how will you separate them?” (191) Damanaka replied: 
“(Friend, | must devise a trick. And it is said:) 

By guile, verily, can be done what cannot be done by 
violence. The female crow by a gold chain compast the death 
of the cobra.” 60. 

(192) Karataka said: “(And) how was that?’ Said he: 


among the “elements” is likewise indicated strikingly in the work named, 
Book 7, Chapter 7, opening sentence (1st ed., page 281), where the enemy 
is called the “second element” (dvitya prakrti). I find in the work named 
no use of the terms “internal” and “external” elements; but it seems clear 
that the distinction must be that which I have indicated. 


294 Book I: Separation of Friends 
STORY 4: CROWS AND SERPENT 


(193) Once upon a time in a certain locality there was a tree, 
in which dwelt a pair of crows. (194) But when they brought 
forth young, a cobra was in the habit of crawling up the hollow 
trunk of the tree and eating the young crows (before they 
learned to fly). (195) Then they, in despair, askt a close friend 
of theirs, a jackal who lived at the foot (of another tree): 
(196) “Friend, what, think you, would it be well for us to do 
in such a case? (Since your young are murdered, it is the 
same as if we, their parents, were slain.)” Said he: “Do not 
despair in this matter. Only by craft can that (greedy) creature 
surely be destroyed. 

After eating many fish, best, worst, and middling, a heron grew 
too greedy and so at last met his death by seizing a crab.” 61. 

(197) The crows said: ‘‘(And) how was that?” Said he: 


STORY 5: HERON AND CRAB 


(198) In a certain region there was a lake that was full of 
all kinds of fish. And a certain heron made his home there, 
who had come to old age and was unable to kill fish. (199) 
So he went to the edge of the lake and made himself appear 
dejected, and waited. (200) There was a crab there, (who was 
surrounded by many fish;) and he said: (201) ‘(Uncele,) why 
are you not trying to get food today (as you used to)?” (202) 
The heron said: ‘‘I am an eater of fish (; so I will speak to 
you without guile). Heretofore I have sustained my life by 
getting hold of you. (At present, my means of livelihood is 
this day destroyed; that is why I am downeast.)’’ (203) (Said 
he: ‘Uncle, how is that?” The heron said:) (204) ‘Today 
some fishermen past near this lake and said: (205) ‘This lake 
has plenty of fish; we will throw the net into it tomorrow.’ 
Then one of them said: ‘There are other lakes near the town 
which we have not yet visited; we will visit them and then 
come back here.’ (206) So, my friend, you are all as good as 
done for, and I (also) am ruined, because my source of liveli- 
hood will be cut off. And that is why (I am so grieved that) 
I am abstaining from food (today). (207) Then the crab told 
this to the fish. Thereupon all the fish came together and 


Story 4: Crows and Serpent.—Story 5: Heron and Crab 295 


said (to the heron): (208) “From the very source whence 
danger is traditionally said to come, a means of escape may 
(also) come. So be so good as to save us!” (209) The heron 
said: “I (am a bird and) cannot cope with men. However, I 
will convey you (one at a time) from this lake to another pond, 
that is not shallow.” (210) Thereupon (because they were so 
frightened) they trusted in him and said to him: ‘(Little 
father! Brother! Uncle!) Take me! Me first!’”’ (211) So that 
villain took the fish one after another and threw them down 
on a flat rock not far away, and ate them one at a time, 
and enjoyed himself vastly. (212) But the crab was in deadly 
fear of losing his life, and (repeatedly) implored him: (213) 
“(Unele, pray) be good enuf to save me too (from the jaws 
of death).” (214) But that (wretched) creature thot: “(I am 
tired of this monotonous fish-meat;) I will taste the delicious 
meat of this [crab], which I have never had before.” (215) 
Then he pickt up the crab and flew thru the air, (not going 
near a single pool of water,) until he was about to throw him 
down on that rock (on which he did the killing); (216) when 
the crab caught sight of the pile of bones of the fish that had 
been eaten already. And at that he thot: (217) “This villain 
has (trickt and) eaten the fish. (So what would be a timely 
thing to do now?) At any rate: 

When a wise man is attackt and sees no escape for him- 
self, then he dies fighting along with his foe.” 62. 

(218) So the foolish heron, who knew nothing about the 
grip of the crab’s pincers, got his head cut off by the crab. 
(219) But the crab (took the heron’s neck, like a lotus-stem, 
and) very slowly crawled back to that same lake (where the 
fish were). (220) And they said to him: ‘“(Brother,) where is 
our uncle yonder?” (221) Then he said: “He is dead. (Here 
is the villain’s head.) By his trickery he ate many of your 
companions; but he met his death thru me.” 


(End of Story 5) 


(222) Therefore I say: ‘After eating many fish” &c. (223) 
(Then) the male crow said to the jackal: “ What do you think 
it timely (for us) to do?” (224) Said he: “Get a gold chain 
that belongs to some rich man, (a king or minister or the like,) 


296 Book I: Separation of Friends 


and put it in the snake’s hole. (225) The people who come to 
get it will kill the snake.” (226) (So speaking the jackal 
departed.) (227) Then the two crows (, hearing this,) flew up 
(and soared about at random looking for a gold chain). (228) 
And soon the female crow came to a certain lake, and when 
she lookt, she saw that the members of a king’s harem were 
playing in the water of the lake, having laid aside near the 
water their gold chains, pearl necklaces, garments, and other 
finery. (229) Then the female crow pickt up a gold chain and 
set out thru the air towards her own home, but slowly, so as 
not to get out of sight. (230) Thereupon when the chamberlains 
(and eunuchs) perceived the theft of the chain, they (took their 
sticks and quickly) pursued. But the female crow deposited 
the gold chain in the snake’s hole, and waited a long way off. 
(231) Now when the king’s officers climbed the tree, (in the 
trunk) they found the cobra (with his hood expanded). (232) 
And they killed him (with blows of their sticks). (233) (When 
they had done this they took the gold chain and departed, 
going where they would. But the pair of crows from that time 
forth dwelt in peace.) 
(End of Story 4) 


(234) Therefore I say: “ By guile, verily, can be done” &e. 
(235) ‘‘(So there is nothing in this world which clever people 
cannot accomplish.) And it is said: 

Whosoever has wit, has power; but as for the foolish, how 
can he be powerful? Behold how the lion Haughty was destroyed 
by the hare!” 63. | 

(236) Karataka said: “ How was that?” Said he: 


STORY 6: LION AND HARE 


(237) In a certain forest-region there was a lion named 
Haughty. (238) (And) he kept up a continuous slaughter of 
the beasts. (239) Then all the beasts came together and humbly 
addrest the king of beasts: (240) ‘‘ Sire, what profit is there in 
this (pitiless and) purposeless slaughtering of all the beasts (, 
which endangers your lordship’s prospects in the next world)? 
(241) It is evident that we are utterly undone [by it], and you 
also will fail of sustenance, so that it is fatal to both parties. 


Story 4: Crows and Serpent.—Story 6: Lion and Hare 297 


(242) (So grant us this favor.) We ourselves will send to your 
lordship for your food one wild creature every day (, from 
each tribe in turn). (243) The lion said: “Agreed.” From that 
time on they sent him a single beast each day, and he con- 
tinually ate the same. (244) Now once upon a time (as the lot 
past from tribe to tribe) it came the turn of a hare. (245) (But) 
he, when all the beasts sent him forth, reflected: (246) ‘ This 
means the end of me; I am entering the jaws of death. What 
now would be a timely thing for me to do? (247) Yet after 
all, is anything impossible for the clever? (So) I will kill the 
lion by craft.” (248) Thereupon he proceeded very slowly, so 
that he arrived too late (for dinner-time). (249) But the lion, 
his throat lean with hunger, was filled with rage and said (to 
him furiously): (25Q) “No matter how angry one is, killing is 
the worst thing one can do! (You are a dead creature this day. 
Tell me,) why this delay on your part?” (251) Then the hare 
(bowed and) said courteously: “My lord, it is not my fault. 
(252) (As I was coming along) another lion stopt me on the 
road and was going to eat me. (And I said: ‘I am going to 
our lord the lion Haughty, to serve as his dinner.’ Then he 
said: ‘That Haughty is a thief. So go and call him and return 
quickly, that whichever of us two shall prove himself king by 
his prowess may eat all of these beasts.’) So I have come to 
report this to my lord.” (253) Hearing this the lion said angrily: 
‘How can there be another lion here (in this wood ruled by 
my right arm)! (Go and) show me the scoundrel quickly! ’’ The 
hare said: “(In that case) come, my lord, and I will show him 
to you.” (254) (But) he (, the hare,) took him and showed him 
a deep well full of clear water, saying: ‘ Look there! (There 
he is!) ”’ (255) (Then) that fool (of a lion) saw his own image 
in the water, and thot: ‘‘ This is that rival of mine,’’ and was 
furiously angry. (And he roared his lion’s roar. Thereupon a 
roar of redoubled strength came back out of the well, because 
of the echo from it. And when the lion heard this roar, he 
thot: ‘‘ He must be exceedingly strong! ”’) And he hurled himself 
upon him, and perisht. (256) But the hare, being overjoyed 
himself and having brought joy to all the beasts, received their 
grateful thanks and dwelt in that wood in peace. 
(End of Story 6) 


298 Book I: Separation of Friends 


(257) Therefore I say: ‘‘ Whosoever has wit has power” «e. 
(258) (When he heard this) Karataka said: “In that case go, 
and good luck go with you. (Do as you think best.) ” (259) 
Then Damanaka went up to Pingalaka and saluted him, and 
sat down. (260) He said: ‘“‘ Whence*! come you? It is a long 
time since I have seen you.” (261) Said he: “Sire, I have 
come to report a matter which (as I believe) is of immediate 
danger. And this is not a pleasant thing for dependants to do; 
the fact is that they tell such things only because of the danger 
that time [lost by their failure to speak] will bring ruin to 
future projects [of their master].?? For thus [it is said]: 

When wise men who are not even appointed ministers offer 
their advice, they form the best soil for the growth of attach- 
ment, watered by affection.” 64. 

(262) (Then) Pingalaka said courteously (to him, because his 
words appeared worthy of credence): “What do you wish to 
say, Sir?” (263) Said he: ‘‘ Why, it is just this: this Sathjivaka 
has a mind to harm you. (264) In a moment of confidence he 
said in my presence: ‘I have now found out just how much 
the three-fold power” of this Piigalaka amounts to. Therefore 
I intend to kill him and seize the kingdom myself.’” (265) 
(And) when Pingalaka heard this (speech, which smote him 
with more irresistible force than a thunderbolt), his heart was 
stunned; he was completely bewildered, and could say nothing 
at all. (266) (But) Damanaka (, observing his expression,) said: 
“It is clear that this great weakness has come about thru the 
dominance of a single minister. And this is well said: 

When minister and prince are raised to too high a position, 
Fortune tries to hold them up, fixing her feet firmly; but since 
she is a woman, she cannot support the load, and lets one of 
the two fall. 65. 

When a king gives one minister absolute power in the king- 
dom, the minister is infatuated and grows proud; with the 


21 Or, “ wherefore.” 

*° Hertel’s rendering of this last clause seems impossible. Uttara cannot 
possibly mean “ Aussage”; here it means the same as samanantara of Pn; 
literally, “ by subsequent-affair-time-ruin-fearing ones.” 

*8 A technical term of political science: the three-fold power consists of pra- 


? 


bhutva ‘eminence of position,” mantra “good counsel,” and uséha “prowess.” 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 299 


indolence of pride he develops a loathing [for the service]; 
because of this loathing, a desire for independence finds a place 
in his heart; and then, in his desire for independence, he plots 
against the king’s life. 66. 

In the case of poisoned food, a loose tooth, or a wicked 
minister, the only relief is to get rid of them utterly.** 67. 

(267) And he (is now quite uncheckt and) holds sway in all 
matters at his own sweet will. So what should be done in such 
a case? (Moreover:) 

Even a wholly devoted minister, if he is managing the affairs 
[of state] in a way that injures the [king’s] interests, must not 
be let alone by the king. If let alone he ruins him.” 68. 

(268) (And hearing this the lion said: “But surely he is such 
a servant as I never had! How ean he be disaffected towards 
me? ”’) (269) (Said he: “ Sire, whether he is your servant or not, 
no conclusion can be safely inferred from that. And it is said:) 

There is no man who does not long for the majesty of kings. 
But it is men who are humbled and powerless that wait upon 
a prince.” 69. 

(270) The lion said: “ Friend, nevertheless my heart will not 
turn against him. For: 

Tho it be disfigured by many defects, to whom is his own 
body not dear? Tho he commit crimes, one who is beloved is 
beloved still.”” 70. 

(271) Damanaka said: ‘That is just the cause of your diffi- 
culty. You have set aside all the beasts, (my lord,) and fixt 
your regard upon him; and (now) he lusts after the kingship. 
Moreover: 

If a king shows too much regard for one person, be he his 
own son or [another] kinsman, he surely steals from him the 
heart of Fortune. 71. 

(272) (And if you think his great stature will be useful to 
you, this also is a mistake. For:) 

(What is the use of an elephant [whose temples are] flowing 
[with the rut-fluid], but who does not do an elephant’s work? 
On high ground or low ground, better is one that does his 
work. 72.) 

(273) (Therefore, Sire, this is no way to succeed.) 


*4 Literally, ‘from the root.” 


300 Book I: Separation of Friends 


If one disregards the advice of the good and clings to the 
advice of the wicked, his life cannot be saved; he is like a 
sick man who eats everything. 73. 

Whosoever does not stay in the control of his friends, which 
is the highest wisdom, soon falls from his station and finds 
himself in the control of his enemies. 74. 

Where one will give, and another will take, advice that is 
successful in its issue, tho it be unpleasant to hear—there 
Fortune loves to dwell. 75. 

One should not honor newcomers to the prejudice of servants 
of long standing. There is no more serious malady, destructive 
of kingship, than this.” 76. 

(274) The lion said: 

“When one has formerly declared in public that a certain 
person has excellent qualities, a man who keeps his word cannot 
declare that that person lacks such qualities. 77. 

(275) (Moreover,) I gave him safe-conduct and brought him 
to myself when he was a supplant, and nourisht him. So how 
can he (be so ungrateful as to) plot against me?” Damanaka 
said : 

“An evil man returns to his evil nature, tho he be tended 
zealously; he is like a dog’s tail that one strives to bend by. 
means of softening and oiling. 78. (And again:) 

A man must say these things uninvited, to one whose injury 
he would avoid. This principle alone is characteristic of the 
good; others are held to be the reverse [of good]. 79. 

(276) (And again: he who said the following:) 

(‘A man should try to restrain a kinsman or a friend, a king 
or a revered person, who strays from the right path; but if 
[the erring one] cannot be restrained, he may thereafter do 
what he pleases.’ 80.) 

(277) (He was surely a traitor. On the contrary:) 

Well-wishers should restrain their friends who desire to do 
wrong and keep them from suffering anguish. For this is 
declared by the righteous to be the whole behavior of the good; 
any other is the behavior of the wicked. 81. 

He is truly devoted who holds one back from evil; that is a 
true deed which is without sin. She is a true wife who is 
obedient; he is truly wise who is approved by the righteous. That 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull o01 


is true fortune which does not intoxicate; he is truly happy 
who is not carried away by desire. He is a true friend who is a 
friend without reserve; he is a true man who is not tormented 
by the senses. 82. . 

It were better to pass by a good friend who is asleep with 
his head on a bed of fire, or who has made a serpent his couch, 
than one who is addicted to vice. 83. 

(278) Therefore this vice of (association with) Sathjivaka will 
bring Your Majesty to loss of the three objects of human 
desire.*° (279) Now if in spite of manifold warnings Your Majesty 
(disregards my words and) does as he sees fit, then (if a 
disaster occurs) hereafter your servant is not to be blamed. 
And it is said: 

A king who follows his own desires takes no account of duty 
or advantage; he strays after his own lusts uncontrolled, like a 
rut-maddened elephant. So when, puft up with pride, he falls into 
a pit of grief, then he throws the blame on his servant, and 
fails to recognize his own misconduct.” 84. 

(280) The lion said: ‘‘(Friend,) if this is the case should he 
not be admonisht?” (281) Damanaka said: “How can you 
think of admonishing him? What sort of policy would that be? 

An enemy that has been admonisht hastens to plot against 
you, or to attack you by force. Therefore it is wise to admonish 
an enemy by deeds and not by words.” 85. 

(282) The lion said: “But he is after all a grass-eater, and I 
am a flesh-eater; so how could he injure me?” (283) Damanaka 
said: ‘That is true; he is a grass-eater and Your Majesty is a 
flesh-eater; he is your natural food and you are one that 
naturally feeds on him. (284) Nevertheless, even if he does you 
no injury himself, he will still cause injury to you thru another.”’ 
(285) (The lion said: ‘‘ What power has he to injure me either 
by himself or thru another?” Said he:) (286) “You know that 
your body is always disfigured with wounds caused by the blows 
of the (claws and) teeth of many furious elephants, (wild oxen, 
buffaloes, boars, tigers, and leopards,) in your battles with 
them. (But) he (constantly) remains near you and scatters his 
dung and urine all about. And in consequence of this worms 
will be produced. Because your body is near at hand, these 


2° Religion or morality, worldly advantage, and love. 


302 Book I: Separation of Friends 


worms will make their way into it, following the holes made 
by the wounds. And in that way too you will surely be 
destroyed. And it is said: 

Not to one whose character is unknown should refuge ever 
be granted. For Slow-crawl was killed thru the fault of 
Stinger.” °° 86. 

(287) Pingalaka said: ‘‘How was that?” Said he: 


STORY 7: LOUSE AND FLEA 

(288) A certain king had (in his palace) an incomparable 
couch, perfect in all respects. (289) A louse named Slow-crawl 
lived in it (in a part of the coverlet). (290) And she remained 
there a long time, eating the king’s blood and passing the time 
pleasantly. (291) Now (once upon a time) a flea named Stinger, 
driven by a breeze, alighted there (on the bed). (292) (And he 
found that the bed had a very fine upper coverlet and double 
pillows, that it was broad as a Ganges sandbank and very soft 
and of fragrant perfume; and he was greatly pleased with it.) 
(293) (And as he strayed here and there, enchanted with the 
touch of it,) it happened that he was observed by Slow-crawl. 
And she said to him: (294) ‘Wherefore have you come to this 
place that is not a proper dwelling for you? Depart from 
here!’ Said he: (295) ‘Madam, I have heretofore tasted many 
kinds of blood (from [people of all the castes,] brahmans, 
ksatriyas, vaisyas, and stidras. But all this was puckery, slimy, 
unsatisfactory, and unpleasant). (296) But he who sleeps in 
this bed must (surely) have blood as delightful as nectar. (He 
must be free from disease, because the wind, gall, and phlegm *? 
[in his body] are controlled by the constant and zealous 
application of herbs and other remedies by physicians. His 
blood is enricht with food containing thick and delicate juices, 

2° So I render the onomatopoetic name Tintibha; but it may be meant 
to suggest the sound made by the insect, rather than its actions (Buzzer, 
not Stinger). In that case the insect could not have been a flea, as it is 
customary to render it in this story, since fleas operate noiselessly; it may 
have been something more like our mosquito. The Sanskrit word, matkuna, 
is applied to various stinging insects, 

*7 According to Hindu medicine these are the three fundamental “humors” 


of the human body. Variation from the proper proportion of them in the 
body causes disease. 


Story 7: Louse and Flea.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull 303 


food that is spicy with candied sugar and treacle, pomegranates 
and the three spices [black and long pepper and dried ginger], 
and that includes the very finest meat from beasts of the land, 
water, and air. I imagine his blood must be like an elixir of 
life.) (297) And by your favor [ should like to taste this 
(fragrant and nourishing [blood]).” (298) Then that [louse] 
(Slow-crawl) said: “That is out of the question for such as 
you; your mouth is like fire and you bite savagely. So go 
away (from this bed).” (299) Then he fell at her feet and 
again made the same entreaty. (300) And she took pity on him 
and agreed, saying: ‘‘So be it. But you must be careful not to 
attack him at the wrong time (or in too sensitive a place).” 
(301) (Said he: ‘“‘ What is the proper time for it? I have never 
had experience and do not know.” She said:) (302) “ When 
he has fallen asleep from weariness after a drunken carouse, 
or is soundly sleeping after the enjoyments of love, then you 
must go to work, slowly and gently. (When he is sunk in sleep 
that follows a drunken stupor, he is not easily aroused.)” (303) 
And he agreed to do just so. But in spite of this arrangement 
that [flea], (disregarding the proprieties of time and) suffering 
from hunger, bit the king (in the back) in the (early part of 
the) evening, when he was barely asleep. (304) But he (, the 
king, as if burnt with a firebrand,) sprang up excitedly and 
said: “See here! Something has bitten me; make search for 
“it!” (805) Then the flea (, frightened, upon hearing the king’s 
words teft the bed and) got into a crack elsewhere. (306) But 
the guards of the bedchamber (at their lord’s command) brought 
a light and (turned back the bed-clothes and) searcht (diligently). 
(807) And they found Slow-crawl (hiding inside) and killed her. 


(End of Story 7) 


(308) Therefore I say: “Not to one whose character is un- 
known” &e. (3809) (And when the story was ended) Pingalaka 
said: ‘‘(Friend,) how can I be sure that he is a traitor (, and 
what is his manner of fighting)?” (810) Damanaka said: ‘(At 
other times he comes into Your Majesty’s presence in a free 
and easy attitude. Today) if he approaches with his pointed 
horns prepared to strike, (ready for battle,) looking this way 
and that in alarm, then Your Majesty must understand that he 


304 Book I: Separation of Friends 


is disposed to injure you.” (311) Having spoken thus (and 
having turned the lion’s heart against him), Damanaka went 
to see Samhjivaka. (812) To him also he walkt up hesitatingly 
and presented himself as one disquieted. (313) (Then) Sariji- 
vaka said to him (courteously): “ (Friend,) is all well (with you)?” 
(314) Damanaka said: ‘How (, pray,) can it be well with 
dependants? (For:) 

Their fortunes are at the mercy of another; their minds are 
ever discontented; they cannot be sure even of their own lives 
—who are dependent on kings. 87. And this is well said: 

Teachers and kings are like-natured. For there is no intimacy 
nor friendship with them; the zealous obedience that has been 
rendered them for no matter how long,—in their anger they 
make nothing of it; it is like dust washt away by clouds of 
rain. 88. (And again:) 

What man upon earth obtains riches and is not puft up? 
Whose misfortunes ever end? Who in this world has not had 
his heart broken by women? Who, pray, is a friend to kings? 
Who does not fall a prey to Death? What beggar has come 
to exalted station? Or what man has ever come off scot-free 
after falling into the snares of the wicked? 89. Therefore, 
assuredly: 

A man must ponder every moment on these questions: ‘ What 
is the time? ?* What friends [have I]? What is the place? ** 
What are my income and expenses? Who am I, and what is” 
my power?’” 90. 

(315) (Upon hearing the words of Damanaka, who concealed 
his true purpose in his heart,) Sathjivaka said: “(riend,) what 
is the matter (now)?” (316) Said he: ‘Even tho a king’s 
confidence ought not to be revealed, still (1 cannot forget that) 
you came and remained here thru trust in me. So J must 
without fail speak as your interests demand. (317) This our 
lord Pingalaka is intending to harm you. He has said: (318) 
‘T will kill Satijivaka and gratify my attendants (with his 
flesh).’” (319) Hearing this Satnjivaka was plunged in deep 
despair. (320) Damanaka said: “ You must consider without 
delay what is to be done in this case.” (821) And because in 


*8 That is, for what action is the present moment timely, and the present 
place suitable? 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 305 


former time he had found Damanaka’s word trustworthy, 
Sainjivaka’s heart was overwhelmed, and he was greatly afraid, 
and said: ‘‘Truly this is well said: 

Women are accessible to base men; a king as a rule cultivates 
unworthy folk; money runs after misers, and the god [of rain] 
rains on mountains and on the sea.” 91. 

(322) And he reflected as follows: “Alas! What is this that 
has fallen upon me? (Moreover:) 

Zealously one studies to please a king, and he is pleased; 
what is strange in that? But this is an unheard-of manner of 
idol, which when one serves it turns to enmity! 92. 

(323) So (assuredly) there is nothing that can be done in 
this matter. 

_For he whose anger is due to a cause will surely be appeased 
when the cause is removed. But if his mind harbors groundless 
hate, how shall another appease him? 93. And this is well said: 

When a foolish swan, hunting for the white-lotus shoots by 
night, has bitten again and again at the reflection of a star in 
the pond, and been deceived, afterwards he suspects that the 
white-lotus is a star and does not bite it even by day. Made 
wary by impostors, men look for something wrong even in the 
righteous. 94. And yet: 

Assuredly offenses cannot fail to occur even without a logical 
cause, and fits of anger are certain to arise without reason. 
But a man of exceptional intelligence, whose heart and whose 
whole disposition have long been tested, should not be abandoned 
without carefully looking into the facts of the case. 95. (And 
again :) : 

A king whose physicians, seers,*® and ministers speak only 
pleasant things, soon loses his health, virtue, and wealth.” 96. 

(524) And he said: ‘‘ What offense have I committed against 
our lord (Pifgalaka)?” (825) Damanaka said: “‘(Friend,) kings, 
you know, need no cause for being hostile (and they are always 
looking for imperfections in others).” (326) Said the other: 
‘That is true. (And this is well said:) 

. Even for men who are devoted and helpful, who apply 
themselves to friendly and useful activities, who know all about 
the business of service and are free from treachery; even for 


?? Perhaps “ priests ”? 
Edgerton, Pafcatantra. If. 20 


306 Book I: Separation of Friends 


them disaster is certain if they once make a false step; while 
success may or may not come to them. Hence the service of a 
lord of the earth is always dangerous, even as the service of 
the lord of the waters .[the ocean]. 97. 

(327) (And this is their very nature.) 

Many a kindness rendered by men of affectionate hearts still 
leads to hatred, while injury treacherously inflicted by others 
still leads to naught but favor. Kings’ minds are hard to grasp, 
and their humors are unstable; so that the conditions of ministry 
are a profound mystery, which even magicians cannot fathom. 98. 

Virtues are virtues only to those who can appreciate them; 
when they touch one who lacks virtue they become faults. For 
rivers that flow with sweetest water become undrinkable when 
they reach the ocean. 99. 

Even small virtues become great with men who are exalted 
in virtue, like the rays of the moon when they touch the peak 
of the White Mountain. 100. 

Even hundreds of human virtues are lost. among men that 
are lacking in virtue, like moonbeams falling by night upon 
the peaks of the Black Mountain. 101. 

A hundred favors are lost upon the base; a hundred wise 
sayings are lost upon the foolish; a hundred sage counsels are 
lost upon one who cannot take advice; a hundred bits of 
wisdom are lost upon the unintelligent. 102. 

A gift to an unworthy person is lost; benevolence is lost 
upon one who has not a benevolent heart and understanding; 
a favor is lost upon the ungrateful; kindness is lost upon one 
that does not appreciate virtue. 103. 

To serve an unintelligent man is like erying in the wilderness, 
rubbing the body of a dead man, planting water-lilies on dry 
land, whispering in the ear of the deaf, bending a dog’s tail, a 
drenching rain on salt earth, or adorning the face of the blind. 104. 

Snakes live in sandalwood-trees; in the waters are water- 
lilies, but also crocodiles; scoundrels, we all know, are death 
to good characters. Where, pray, can be found happiness in 
enjoyments without something to spoil it? 105. 

Ketaki-flowers are beset with thorns; water-lilies grow out 
of the mud; wantons are attended by hematin where is there a 
jewel without a flaw?” 106. 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 307 


(328) Damanaka said: “You see, this our lord (Pingalaka) 
was sweet in his words (in the beginning), but (in the end) 
his heart is like poison (, I perceive).” (329) Sathjivaka 
(meditated and) said: ‘‘(Friend, this is quite true.) I also have 
experienst this from him. Since: 

He holds out his hand to you from afar; his eyes glisten; 
he offers half of his seat; he is quick with warm embraces; to 
friendly words and questions he has a ready answer; hiding 
poison within, he is all sweetness without, and exceedingly 
skilled in deceit; what a monstrous manner of stage-play is this 
that is practist by scoundrels! 107. 

(In the beginning, to be sure, it has the bright ornaments 
of civility, kind words, and courtesy; in the middle too it is 
highly regarded for its flowers of beautiful words—which how- 
ever bear no fruit; but at the end it is repulsive from the 
stains of malice, discourtesy, and disgrace. Far be from you 
association with ignoble men; it serves no good purpose. 108.) 

(330) Alas! What common ground could there be for 
association between me, a grass-eater, and a lion (that eats 
flesh)? (And this is well said:) 

When the sun with rays of fiery splendor rests on the sunset 
mountain, the bee enters the lotus eager to drink from its 
filaments, and recks not of its imprisonment within it, which 
the twilight brmgs on. A greedy man thinks of no danger in 
his single thirst for enjoyment. 109. 

The faithless bees give up drinking the honey of the water- 
rose, desert the newly-opened blue-lotus blossom, and reject 
the heavily fragrant jasmine with its native charm, only to 
come to grief in [seeking] the liquid on the temples of [rutting] 
elephants.*® So men turn their backs on what is theirs for the 
asking, and madly seek the lucky throws of the dice. 110. 

The bees pursue the quick-flowing liquid on the borders of 
the cheeks of rutting elephants, eager to taste the fresh sweet 
juice; but when they fall to the ground with limbs ecrusht by 
the tossing gusts of wind from the fan-like ears of the elephants, 
then they remember how they played in the cups of the 
lotuses. 111. 

39 See page 286, note 15. A word-play is involved in this stanza; the same 


word in Sanskrit means “ elephant’s temple” and “lucky throw’at dice.” 
20* 


308 Book I: Separation of Friends 


(331) But the truth is that this is (just) the weakness of 
those who have fine qualities. (For:) 

The multitude of its own fruits breaks the branches of a 
tree; the mass of its tail-feathers makes the peacock’s movements 
slow; the blooded horse that is quick of movement is made to 
draw burdens like an ox; in aman of fine qualities those very 
qualities, look you, oftentimes prove his enemies. 112. 

(Most often kings turn their faces wholly away from a man 
of good qualities; out of sheer greed women commonly grant 
their favors to wicked and foolish men. False is the praise 
which says that men’s eminence comes from their noble 
qualities; for the people of this world as a rule reck not ofa 
man’s true nature. 113.) 

With lions, imprisoned in cages, their wretched faces pining 
away from the humiliation; with elephants, the sides of their 
heads torn by goadhooks; with serpents, charmed to stillness; 
with wise men, fallen into helpless misery, and with men of 
prowess ruined by ill-luek,—Fate plays as with toys, tossing 
them to and fro at her sweet will. 114. 

(332) Now since I have entered a group of mean creatures, 
my (very) life is assuredly lost. And it is said: 

Many mean creatures, if they are clever and if they all live 
by their wits, may work either harm or freedom from harm, 
like the crow and his friends in the case of the camel.” 115. 

(333) Damanaka said: “ (And) how was that?” Said the other: 


STORY 8: LION’S RETAINERS AND CAMEL 


(334) In a certain forest-region dwelt a lion named Haughty. 
(335) He had three retainers, a leopard, a crow, and a jackal. 
(336) Now as they were wandering (thru this forest) they came 
upon a camel who had been abandoned by the master of a 
caravan. (337) And the lion, seeing this absurd-looking creature, 
(the like of which he had never seen before,) inquired of them: 
(338) “Ask this creature who he is, and whence he comes (; 
for he is unlike anything ever seen in this forest).” (339) Then 
the crow, after he had found out the facts, reported: ‘“ This is 
a camel named Fabulous.” (340) Then they gave him assurances 
and brought him to the lion. (341) He for his part told all that 
had happened to himself and how he had been separated from 


Story 8: Lion’s Retainers and Camel 309 


the master of the caravan. (342) And the lion granted him 
protection and safe-conduct. (343) Now in the course of time 
it chanced that the lion’s body was wounded by the tusks of a 
(wild) elephant in battle, and he had to keep to his cave. (344) 
And when a space of five or six (or seven) days had past by, 
the retainers all became dangerously ill from lack of food. 
(345) Since they were in distress, the lion said to them: 
‘“(Beeause of this illness due to my wounds) I am unable to 
get food for you (as before). (346) So why do not you make 
some effort on your own account?” (347) Then they said: 
“When Your Majesty is in such a state, what use have we for 
nourishment for ourselves?” (348) The lion said: “Sirs, your 
behavior is that of good retainers, and your devotion (to me) 
is excellent. (You have spoken most creditably.) (849) ([But] 
you are not disabled, and I am sick.) So (since I am in this 
condition) do you bring me something to eat.” (850) (And when 
they said nothing, he said to them: ‘‘ Why are you so abasht?’’) 
(351) “Seek for some creature or other; and I (even in my 
present state) will provide you and myself with sustenance to 
keep us alive.” (852) Thus addrest they (then arose and) went 
into the midst of the forest, and began to roam about; but 
when they found no animal, (353) then they excluded Fabulous 
from their midst and began to plot a (wicked) scheme. (354) 
(Now) the crow said: (‘‘We are ruined by this our lord, altho 
the means [of salvation] is at his disposal.) (355) (The other 
two said: ‘““How so?” Said he:) “We will (simply) kill (this) 
Fabulous, and so save our lives. (Why not?)” (356) (They said: 
‘‘He has come to us asa trusting refugee, and we have admitted 
him to our comradeship.” Said he:) (857) ‘‘Associations between 
grass-eaters and flesh-eaters are incongruous.” (358) (Then) 
they said: “Our lord (too) has given safe-conduct to him. 
Therefore this is (both improper and) impossible.” (359) (But 
again) the crow said: ‘‘ You stay here, until I (by myself) bring 
this thing to pass.” (860) So saying he went to visit the lion. 
(361) (And) the lion said: ‘‘Have you found any (creature)?” 
(3862) The crow said: ‘‘ He may find who has sight and strength; 
but we are all of us blind and helpless from lack of food. 
(363) However, I cannot refrain from making a_ timely 
suggestion to my lord. You are destroying yourself by your 


310 Book I: Separation of Friends 


own fault, in spite of the fact that food is at your disposal.” 
(364) The lion said: ‘How so?” (365) The crow said: 
“(Why,) this Fabulous here.” (366) The lion said (angrily): 
‘Fie! That would be a piece of savagery. I have given him 
(protection and) assurance of safety; so how can I kill him? 
Moreover: 

Not a gift of a cow, nor a gift ‘of land, nor yet a gift of food, 
is so important as the gift of safety, which is declared to be 
the great gift among all gifts in this world.” 116. 

(367) The crow said: “(O how great is my lord’s under- 
standing in regard to right conduct! But here is another thing 
which is important, namely the saying of a great sage, that 
for the sake of good, evil may be undertaken.) It is likewise 
said : . 

For the sake of a family an individual may be sacrificed; 
for the sake of a village a family may be sacrificed; for the 
sake of a nation a village may be sacrificed; for the sake of 
one’s self the world may be sacrificed.” 117. 

(368) (And he said further:) “Let not my lord kill him 
himself. I have conceived how he may be killed by a trick.” 
(369) (Said he: ‘Just how?” The crow said:) (370) “(Why, 
when he sees my lord and us in this condition,) he will himself 
offer himself (for the nourishment of others, so that he may 
gain heaven and [other] creatures may be benefited. There 
would be no sin in this).” (871) When the crow had spoken 
thus, the lion (seemed to be confused in his mind and) spoke 
not a word. (372) But that [crow] went (back) to where the 
others were, and spoke to them (singly), with tricky words: 
(373) “See, our lord is in a serious condition. His life hangs 
by a thread.*! (Now without him who will protect us in this 
wood?) So since the pain of hunger*®? has brought him near 
to the other world, let us (go of our own accord and) offer 
him our bodies, that we may discharge the debt we owe to our 
lord’s grace.” (374) So having agreed to do this they went to 
visit the lion, Fabulous among them. (375) Then the crow said: 
‘‘Sire, we have found no food; (and) my lord is worn out with 
long fasting. So by all means eat my flesh.” (376) (Thereupon) 


1 Literally, “his life has got into the end of his nose.” 
* Possibly “hunger and disease” instead of “the pain of hunger.” 


Story 8: Lion’s Retainers and Camel.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull 311 


the lion said: ‘Your body, Sir, is (very) small. Even if I ate 
your body I should not get any satisfaction from. it.” (377) 
(And when he had withdrawn) the jackal (likewise) spoke as 
follows: “My body amounts to more than his; so save your 
life with mine.” (378) To him also the lion made the same 
reply. (879) (And when he had withdrawn) the leopard said: 
‘““My body amounts to more than theirs; eat it.” (380) To him 
likewise he replied: ‘‘ Your body also is [too] small.” (381) 
Hearing this Fabulous thot: “No one at all is going to lose 
his life here. (So) I too will say the same.” (382) Then he 
(arose and approacht the lion and) said: “Sire, (my body 
amounts to more than theirs; so) save your life with my body.” 
(383) Before the words were out of his mouth the leopard and 
the jackal had torn open both his flanks, and he perisht on 
the spot and was devoured. 


(End of Story 8) 


(384) Therefore I say: ‘‘Many mean creatures, if they are 
clever’? &¢. (885) (And when the story was finisht) Sathjivaka 
said again to Damanaka: “(Friend,) this king is attended by 
mean creatures, which augurs ill for those who depend on him. 
And it is said: 

Better a vulture attended by swans that live contentedly in 
the water, than a swan attended by savage carrion-birds that 
eat flesh. A mean retinue destroys even a man of fine qualities, 
while even one lacking in virtue becomes virtuous if his followers 
are above meanness. 118. 

(886) Now this king has been turned against me by some 
one or other. And this is well said: : 

Whole surfaces are carried away even from a mountain 
when undermined by a gentle flow of water; how much more 
the soft hearts of men by clever persons who attack them with 
slander! 119. 

(387) Now in this case what would be a timely thing to do? 
Why, what else than to fight? (It would be unfitting to wait on 
his commands.) And it is said: 

When even a parent [or, an elder] is arrogant and knows not 
what he should do and what he should not do, and strays into 
evil paths, it is proper to punish him. 120. 


312 Book I: Separation of Friends 


The worlds that seekers of heaven attain by countless sacri- 
fices, by mortification of the self and by quantities of alms, 
even those same worlds are attained in an instant by men of 
valor who lose their lives in a good fight. 121. 

Life and fame and wealth—all these must, I say, be defended 
by fighting. Death in battle is the most glorious for men. Who 
lives under the sway of his foe—it is he that is dead. 122. 

Kither he will die and gain heaven, or else he will destroy 
his foes and gain [earthly] joy. Assuredly both these blessings 
of men of valor are hard to attain.” 123, 

(388) Damanaka said: ‘Friend, that is not the right proce- 
dure. For: | 

He who knows not his enemy’s prowess, yet starts a quarrel, 
surely comes to grief, as the sea did thru the strandbird.” 124. 

(389) Sathjivaka said: “‘(And) how was that?” Damanaka 
said : 


STORY 9: STRANDBIRDS AND SEA 


(390) (Once upon a time, in a certain place) on the sea-shore 
dwelt a pair of strandbirds. (391) (Now once) when the female 
bird was about to lay her eggs, she said to her mate: (3592) 
‘‘(Sir,) find some place that is suitable for me to lay my eggs.” 
(393) Said he: ‘‘Why surely this very place is excellent; lay 
your eggs right here.” (394) She replied: ‘‘ Don’t speak of this 
place; it is dangerous; for (perchance) the flood-tide of the sea 
may wash up with its waves and carry off my young.” (395) 
He said: ‘“‘My dear, the sea cannot undertake (such) a conflict 
with me.’ (396) She replied laughing: ‘There ‘is a great 
difference between your power and the sea’s! How can you 
fail to realize your own strength and weakness? And it is 
said: 

It is hard to know oneself, and to appraise one’s capacity or 
incapacity for a given task. He who has this kind of discernment 
does not come to grief even in a hard place. 125. (And 
again :) 

If one heeds not the advice of friends and well-wishers, he 
perishes like the foolish tortoise who fell from the stick.” 126. 

(397) The male bird said: “(And) how was that?” She 
replied: 


Story 9: Strandbirds and Sea.—Story 10: Geese and Tortoise 9313 


STORY 10: GEESE AND TORTOISE 

(398) Once upon a time a tortoise named Shellneck lived in 
a certain lake. (399) He had two friends, geese, named Slim 
and Ugly. (400) Now in the course of time a (twelve-years’) 
drought came upon them. Then the two [geese] decided: (401) 
“This lake has lost its water. We will go to another lake. 
(402) But first we will take leave of our dear friend Shellneck 
(here, whom we have known so long).” (403) They did so; but 
the tortoise said to them: (404) “(Why do you take leave of 
me? Nay,) if you love me, then you should save me also from 
the jaws of death. (For) it is clear that you will suffer no more 
than a (mere) searcity of food in this lake in which the water 
is low; but for me it means nothing less than death. So bethink 
you, which is more serious, loss of food or loss of life?” (405) 
The two [geese] replied: ‘‘(Rightly spoken; quite true. How- 
ever—you know what the occasion demands!) We will (without 
fail) take you along; (406) but you must not (be so thotless as 
to) say anything on the way.” (The tortoise said: ‘‘ Very well, 
I will not,” and the two geese brought a stick and said:) (407) 
(Now) grasp this stick firmly in the middle with your teeth. 
(408) As for us, we will take hold of it by both ends and carry 
you far away (thru the air) to a large lake.” (409) Thus it was 
done. And when the tortoise was seen as he was being carried 
over a city that was near that lake, (410) the people raised an 
uproar, saying: “ What is that (thing like a wagon-wheel) that 
is being carried (thru the air by two birds)?” (411) (And) 
hearing this the tortoise (, whose end was at hand, let go of 
the stick and) said: (412) ‘ What is all this fuss about?” (413) 
Even as he spoke, (at that moment) he dropt from the stick 
and fell to the ground. (414) And the people, eager for his 
meat, cut him to pieces (with sharp knives as soon as he struck 


the ground). 
(End of Story 10) 


(415) Therefore I say: “[If one heeds not the advice] of 
friends and well-wishers” &¢, (416) And again she said: 

“Forethot and Ready-wit both prosper in peace; Come-what- 
will perishes.” 127. 

(417) The male bird said: “ (And) how was that?” She said: 


314 Book I: Separation of Friends 


STORY 11: FORETHOT, READY-WIT, AND COME- 
WHAT-WILL 

(418) Once upon a time three large fish dwelt in a certain 
(big) pond. (419) (Their names were) Forethot, Ready-wit, and 
Come-what-will. (420) Now once Forethot (as he was swimming 
around in the water) heard the words of some fishermen who 
were passing (near by): (421) ‘This pond has plenty of fish; 
(so) tomorrow we will catch the fish in it.’”’ (422) And hearing 
this Forethot reflected: ‘They are sure to come back; so I 
will (take Ready-wit and Come-what-will along and) take refuge 
in another pond (whose stream is not blockt).” Thereupon he 
called his friends and askt them to go [with him]. (423) Then 
Ready-wit said: “If the fishermen come here, then I will save 
myself by some means or other suited to the circumstances.” 
(424) But Come-what-will (, whose end was at hand,) paid no 
heed to his words, and took no steps (to go). (425) So (seeing 
that both of them were determined to stay there,) Forethot 
(entered the stream of the river [the outlet of the lake]. and) 
went to another lake. (426) And on the next day (after he left) 
the fishermen (with their followers blockt the river from within 
and) threw in a (scoop-)net and caught all the fish to the last 
one. (427) (When this had happened) Ready-wit assumed the 
aspect of a dead fish, and made himself appear so (as he lay 
in the net). (428) And they thot: “This (big fish) is already 
dead;” and they (took him out of the net and) laid him down 
near the water. (429) (But) thereupon he jumpt up and fled 
(in great haste) to another lake. (430) But Come-what-will (had 
no idea what to do, and he) moved aimlessly about this way 
and that till he was caught in the net and killed with clubs. 


(End of Story 11) 


(431) Therefore I say: ‘Forethot” &e. (432) The male 
strandbird said: “(My dear, do you think that I am like Come- 
what-will? Now) be not afraid; while my right arm protects 
you who can do you harm?” (433) Then the female bird laid 
her eggs in that same place. (434) (But) the sea, which had 
overheard his previous boasting, was curious about the matter, 
and carried off the eggs, thinking: ‘‘I will (just) see what he 
will do.” (435) (Then when she saw that the nest was empty) 


Story 9: Strandbirds and Sea.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull B1H 


the female bird was filled with grief, and said to her mate: (436) 
‘Now see, this (disaster) has happened (to unhappy me,) just 
as I told you before; (because we chose an unfavorable place,) 
we have lost our young.” (487) The male bird said: “ My dear, 
see now what J can do too!” (4388) Then he called an assembly 
of the birds and told them of his distress caused by the carrying 
off of his young. (439) Then one (bird) said: “ We cannot fight 
with the ocean. (440) But (this is what it would be well to do 
now:) let us all of us complain to Garuda *’ and so arouse him. 
(He will remove the cause of our grief.)” (441) So deciding 
they went to see Garuda. (442) But he had been summoned 
by (the Lord) Narayana [Visnu] for a battle between the gods 
and the demons. (443) And (just at that moment) the birds 
reported to the lordly king of the birds the grief which the 
ocean had caused them by taking their young away from them. 
(444) (And they said:) “Sire, while you are (shining as) our 
lord, we (, who depend only on our beaks for support and 
have little to eat,) have been injured by the ocean; he has 
stolen our young.” (445) (And) Garuda was enraged when he 
heard of the injury to his subjects. (446) (But the god) 
Narayana [Visnu] knew what was in his mind (because of his 
power of knowing past, present, and future), and went to see 
him of his own accord. (447) Now when Garuda saw the god, 
with deeply troubled heart he said: “Is it fitting that I should 
suffer this humiliation from the accursed ocean, when you are 
my lord?” (448) (And having been informed of the facts) the 
god smiled and said to the ocean: (449) “(Now) give (the 
strandbird) back his eggs. (450) Else I shall scorch you with 
weapons of flame (and dry up your waves with countless 
thousands of submarine fires**) and reduce you to dry land.” 
(451) Thereupon (at the god’s command) the ocean in alarm 
gave back the eggs to the strandbird. 


(End of Story 9) 


(452) Therefore I say: ‘““He who knows not his enemy’s 
prowess” &c. (453) And Sarijivaka, having understood the 


33 A mythical bird, upon which the god Visnu rides; regarded as king 
of the birds. Originally the sun conceived as a bird. 
‘4 The Hindus believed in the existence of an infernal fire under the ocean. 


316 Book I: Separation of Friends 


meaning of this, askt him: ‘‘Friend, (tell me,) what is his 
method of fighting?” (454) Said he: ‘(At other times he is 
wont to remain sitting on a flat rock with limbs carelessly relaxt 
as he looks towards you. Today) if first of all he stands gazing 
in your direction (while you are yet afar off), with uplifted 
tail, his four feet drawn together, with open mouth and ears 
erect, (455) then you may know that he has a hostile purpose 
towards you, and (you also) may act accordingly.” (496) Having 
spoken thus Damanaka went to see Karataka. (457) And the 
latter said to him: ‘What have you accomplisht?” (458) Said 
he: “1 have sown enmity between them (as I intended. You 
will see by the outcome. And) what is surprising in this? It 
is said: 

Dissension, well directed, may divide even the true-hearted, 
as a mighty stream of waters [divides] mountains of solid 
rock.”’ 128. 

(459) Having spoken thus Damanaka (along with Karataka) 
went to where Pingalaka was. (460) Sainjtvaka too, (perturbed 
at heart,) walking very slowly, [came and] saw that the lion’s 
appearance was just as it had been described [by Damanaka]; and 
(as he slunk into his presence) he reflected: “This is truly said: 

Like a house within which a serpent is hidden, or a wood 
full of beasts of prey; like a shady pool full of charming 
water-lilies but infested with crocodiles; so the minds of kings 
are ever defiled by mean, lying, and ignoble men; it is hard in 
this world for timorous servants to penetrate them.” 129. 
(461) (So he took measures for his own protection, in the 
manner described [by Damanaka].) And Pingalaka ‘too, when 
he saw him presenting this appearance, believed the words of 
Damanaka, and sprang upon him (in fury). (462) (Then) 
Sarhjivaka’s back was rent by the tips of his hatchet-like*® 
claws; but striking with the ends of his horns he tore open 
the lion’s belly and made shift to get loose from him. (463) 
(And once more) there ensued a terrific fight between the two 
enraged creatures. (464) And when Karataka saw that both of 
them were turned the [red] color of palasa-trees in bloom, he said 
(reproachfully) to Damanaka: (465) ‘‘Shame on you, villain! 
You have caused all this trouble by your folly. 

35 Or, ‘‘ thunderbolt-like.” 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 317 


True ministers are they whose political skill enables them 
to settle by mere peaceful negotiation matters which [others] 
would accomplish by strenuous measures and which would lead 
to extreme force and violence. But as for those who seek 
small and unsubstantial advantages by the ill-advised use of 
force, they by their imprudent conduct set the king’s fortune 
in hazard. 130. (Therefore, O fool!) 

Surely conciliation is the means which should always be 
tried first by him who knows his business. For policies that 
are carried out by conciliation do not end in disaster. 131. 

Not by a radiant jewel, not by the sun nor by fire, but by 
conciliation alone is dispelled the darkness born of enmity. 132. 

Fourfold political methods*® are known, beginning with 
conciliation and ending with violence. But of these violence is 
the worst; therefore it should be avoided. 133. (And again:) 

Conciliation, bribery, and sowing of dissension, these three 
are an ever-open door of wisdom. But the fourth [and last] 
method is declared by the noble to be heroic action.*®’ 134, 

The might of the mighty—of elephants, vipers, lions, fire, 
water, wind, and the sun—is seen to be fruitless against the 
onslaught of the political methods. 135. 

Many heroes have gone forth, tall and broad-shouldered, not 
foolish either, but possest of insight; why have they followed 
the leader? ® 136. 

(466) (And furthermore) you have gone too far in arrogant 
reliance on the fact that you are a hereditary minister, and 
this also will be fatal to you. 

If one gets learning, but does not then devote his whole 
soul to controlling the senses; if it does not make the intellect 


36 A technical term of political science. The other two ‘“ methods” are 
bribery and sowing of dissension (between one’s enemies). Cf. following 
verses. 

37 Meaning, apparently, that this should be used only as a last resort. 

38 So following Hertel’s interpretation, which the Syriac version seems to 
support. But I feel very uncertain of the rendering of anugataé gatam; it 
would seem more naturally to mean ‘“ why have they followed him who has 
past away [died]?” (answer: “ because they relied on violence rather than 
on the better methods of conciliation &c.”) If Hertel’s rendering is right, 
the implied answer is: “‘ because the leader (gata) knew the right political 
methods and so could control them {the heroes].” 


318 Book I: Separation of Friends 


useful, if it does not abide in righteousness, if mere embellishments 
of oratory before men are the only results of its acquisition, 
if it makes neither for peace nor for glory; what profit is there 
in such learning? 137. | 

(467) (Now in [political] science counsel is said'to have five 
elements, namely: the plan of the thing to be undertaken, 
provisions of men and money, discrimination in the choice of 
time and place, prevention of impending disasters, and successful 
completion of the project.*®) (468) (At present) this our lord 
is in grave danger; therefore we must devise a means of 
prevention (of disaster). And again: 

Skill is shown in action; that of ministers in patching up 
splits, and that of physicians in a complicated disease. When 
all is well who cannot be wise? 138. 

(469) Now, fool, your mind is perverse, and because you 
faney yourself clever you are devising your own ruin. And 
this is well said: | 

Learning, the destroyer of arrogance, begets arrogance in 
fools; even as light, that illumines the eye, makes owls 
blind.” 139. 

(470) (And) when Karataka saw his lord in that lamentable 
plight, he (was overwhelmed with grief and) said: ‘This 
disaster has overtaken my lord thru unwise counsel. (And after 
all) this is well said: 

Kings who follow the advice of the base, and do not walk 
in the path taught by the wise, enter a tangle of misfortunes 
containing all manner of afflictions; and the way out is 
hard. 140. | 

(471) (Now, fool, it is clear that) everyone strives to have 
his lord attended by men of excellence. (But you have created 
dissension by your slanderous words and separated your lord 
from his friend.) With such as you how ean our lord have 
the advantage of being attended by men of excellence? And it 
is said: 

No one approaches a king, even if his qualities be noble, if 
he have an evil minister. He is like a pool of clear and sweet 
water in which vicious crocodiles dwell. 141. 


8° Quotation from the Kautiliya Arthasastra, the Textbook of Political 
Science attributed to Canakya (cf. p. 271 note 1 et passim). 


Frame Story: Lion and Bull 319 


(472) But you, being (mainly) bent on your own aggrandize- 
ment, desire (rather to render) the king isolated. (Fool, do you 
not know this ?—) 

A king with many followers is glorious, never one who is 
isolated. Those who wish him isolated are declared to be his 
foes. 142. 

(473) (And you do not understand this. Therefore the Creator 
has produced [in you] a clear case in which the form belies 
[the nature]. For:) 

One should seek for the salutary in the unpleasant; if it is 
there, it is after all nectar. One should seek for the deceitful 
in the pleasant; if it is there, it is after all poison. 143. 

(474) (Moreover,) you are tormented with jealousy at seeing 
others enjoy pleasures, and this also is wicked, to act thus 
towards (devoted) friends. For: 

Fools assuredly are they who seek to win a friend by 
treachery, righteousness by deceit, abundance of wealth by 
oppression of others, learning by ease, or a woman by harsh- 
ness. 144. (Also:). 

Whatever good befalls a minister, the same is profitable for 
the king as well. What would the ocean be without its waves, 
that rise on high and gleam like gems? 145. | 

(475) And one who has won the favor of his lord ought to 
be the more particularly well-behaved. And it is said: 

Just so far as a lord treats his servant with favor [or, punningly, 
‘radiance’], even so far is the path of the cowering [servant] 
illumined, however lowly it be. 146. 

(476) (Therefore your character is insignificant. And it is said:) 

A great man does not lose his self-possession when he is 
afflicted; the ocean is not made muddy by the falling in of its 
banks. A worthless man is perturbed by even a very trifling 
cause; the darbha-grasses sway even in a languid breeze. 147. 

(477) And yet, after all, this is our lord’s own fault, because 
he takes counsel with such as you (, who make your living out 
of a mere pretense of counsel and are quite ignorant of the use of 
the six forms of policy.4° He shows no regard for the attainment 
of the three [objects of human desire].44 And this is well said): 


4° These are listed in § 188, p. 293. 
41 See page 272, note 4. 


320 Book I: Separation of Friends 


(Kings who delight in servants that speak brilliant and 
pleasing words but do not bend their bows—their dominions 
are enjoyed by their enemies. 148.) 

(478) (Now assuredly) by (these) your actions you have made 
it clear (that your statesmanship was inherited, and) that without 
doubt your father was (just) like you. (But how can this be 
known?) Because: 

The son must needs follow in his father’s path. For myro- 
balan-fruits do not grow on a ketaka-tree! 149. 

(479) (And if a man is wise and his character is profound, 
no enemy finds a breach in his defenses by which he might 
break in upon him, no, not in a long time, unless he himself 
carelessly reveals an opening. And this is well said:) 

Who could discover, even by trying hard, the peacocks’ 
place of excretion, were they themselves not so foolish as to 
dance in joy at the rumble of the thunder-cloud?*? 150. 

(480) (Now in any case) what use is there in giving 
instruction to (a wretch like) you? (And it is said:) 

You cannot bend wood that is unbendable; you cannot use 
a knife on a stone. Know from Needle-beak that you cannot 
teach one who cannot learn.” 151. 

(481) Damanaka said: ‘‘(And) how was that?” Karataka said: 


STORY 12: APE, GLOW-WORM, AND BIRD 


(482) In a certain forest-region there was a herd of apes. 
(483) And (once upon atime) in the winter(-season), when they 
were suffering from cold and in great distress, they saw a 
glow-worm and took it for fire. (484) They covered it over 
with dry sticks, grass, and leaves which they gathered, and 
stretcht out their arms, (and rubbed their arm-pits, bellies, and 
chests,) and actually felt the comfort of (imaginary) warmth. 
(485) (Then) one ape (among them, who was especially chilly,) 
kept blowing upon it all the time with his lips (, giving his 
whole attention to it). (486) Now a bird named Needle-beak 
(saw this, and) flew down from a tree and said: (487) ‘(Friend,) 
do not trouble yourself, this is no fire, it is a glow-worm.” 
(488) But the other gave no heed to his words and went on 


* This alleged habit of peacocks is frequently mentioned in Indian poetry. 


Story 12: Ape, Glow-worm, and Bird —Frame Story: Lion and Bull 321 


blowing. (489) And tho he tried over and over again to stop 
him, he would not stop. (490) (To make a long story short,) 
the bird kept coming close to his ear and nagging at him 
insistently; (491) until (at last) the ape was enraged, and 
seizing him violently smote him against a stone and killed him. 


(End of Story 12) 


(492) Therefore I say: “You cannot bend wood that is un- 
bendable”? &e. (493) ‘And after all: 

What can learning accomplish, bestowed on a worthless 
person? It is like a light in a house placed in a covered vessel. 
152. 

(494) (So you are assuredly misbegotten. And it is said:) 

(Those whose ideas are based on sound knowledge must 
recognize in this world the begotten son, the after-begotten,*® 
the super-begotten, and the misbegotten. 153.) 

(Now the begotten [son] has qualities like the mother; the 
after-begotten*® is like the father; the super-begotten is 
superior to the latter; the misbegotten is the lowest of the low. 
154.) 

(495) (And this is well said:) 

He who bears the yoke of the family by his far-reaching 
intelligence, riches, and power—only he is a real son to his 
mother. 155. (And again:) 

Where can you not find excellence that flowers but for a 
passing moment? But a man adorned with lasting accomplish- 
ments is hard to find. 156. 

(496) Now, fool, you make no reply! It is said: 

His voice is broken, his face and color are altered, his 
look is frightened, his body is easily startled; for a man 
who has committed a crime is utterly terrified by his own act. 
157. 

(497) And this is well said: 

Evil-wit and No-wit—the one is as bad as the other, I ween. 
The son, because he was all too clever, caused his father’s 
death by smoke.” 158. 

(498) Damanaka said: “(And) how was that?” Karataka 
said: 


48 Or, “ like-begotten.” 
Edgerton, Pajicatantra, II. 21 





322 Book I: Separation of Friends 


STORY 13: EVIL-WIT AND HONEST-WIT 

(499) (Once upon a time) in a certain city there were two 
merchants’ sons who were (good) friends; and their names 
were Hvil-wit and Honest-wit. (500) They went to another 
(distant) country to seek their fortunes. (501) (Now) on the 
way the one (merchant’s son) who was named Honest-wit (, 
because of his merit [acquired by past deeds],) found a thousand 
(silver) dinars in a purse (where a usurer had once hidden it). 
(502) (But) he took counsel with Evil-wit (, and they came to 
this decision): ‘We have got all we want, (so) let us (take it 
and) go to our own city.” So they went back. (503) When 
they were nearly home, Honest-wit said: ‘Let us divide the 
dinars half and half (and let us enter our homes and henceforth 
live in splendor in the sight of our friends and kinsmen and 
the other people).” (504) (Then) Evil-wit, whose heart harbored 
guile, said to him, in the hope of carrying out a plan of his 
own: (505) “Friend, while we have money left in common, 
our friendly relations will remain unbroken. (506) Rather let 
us take a hundred apiece and bury the rest (right here) in the 
ground, and go to our homes, and when occasion arises here- 
after, we will come and take hence the little that we need.” 
(507) The other replied: ‘“‘As you say.” So they did as suggested, 
and hid the rest of the money carefully in the ground at the 
foot of a tree, and went to their homes. (508) (Now in the 
course of that year Evil-wit used up his share, because he spent 
money on vicious indulgences and because his merit [acquired 
by past deeds] was scanty; and he and Honest-wit took more 
money from the store and divided it, a hundred apiece. And 
by the end of the second year this also was used up in the 
same way.) (509) Hereupon Evil-wit thot: (510) ‘(If I divide 
with him again [and we take] a hundred apiece, the remaining 
four hundred will be too little to be worth stealing.) I will 
(take the six [hundred] that are left and) make them all mine.” 
(511) So deciding he went by himself and took away the store 
of money and smoothed over the ground where it had been. 
(512) (And) not more than a month later he (went and) said 
to Honest-wit (without waiting for a suggestion from him): 
(513) “Friend, I have a bill to meet; (come,) let us divide 
equally the money that is left.” (514) And when Honest-wit 


St. 13: Evil-wit and Honest-wit.—St. 14: Herons, Snake and Mongoose 323 


agreed, they went together to that place and began to dig. (515) 
And when the ground was dug open and the money was not to 
be found, (516) then Evil-wit (in his impudence did not wait for 
his friend to say anything, but) beat his own head with a stone 
and said in great excitement: (517) “O Honest-wit! You must 
have stolen this money (and no other. Now give me half of 
it)!” (518) Said the other: “I am not the man to commit such 
a theft. You have stolen it.” (519) So quarreling with each 
other they went to court. (5620) And when the case had been 
stated (and heard), the judges arrested both of them, because 
the matter was so obscure that it was hard to decide. (521) 
And after a space of five days Evil-wit declared (to the judges): 
(522) “TI have a witness (in this matter of the dinars; now 
question him).” (523) (But) they (, hoping to settle the case,) 
askt him: ‘‘Who is your witness? (Produce him.)” (524) He 
said: ‘‘The (very same) tree at the roots of which the money 
was placed, even that is my witness.” (525) (Then) the judges 
were astonisht and said: ‘““How shall a tree give evidence? 
Very well, tomorrow he shall prove his statement.” (526) And 
they let (both of) them go to their homes, taking surety from 
them. (527) (Then) Evil-wit went home and besought his father 
[saying]: (528) “ Father, the dinars are in my hands. (But) 
they depend solely on a word from you.” (529) His father said: 
“ What am I to do about it?’ (530) Said he: “ You must enter 
into the trunk of that tree tonight and remain hidden there. 
(531) And tomorrow when the judges put the question you 
must say: ‘ Honest-wit took the money.’ (532) (Thereupon) 
his father said: ‘‘My son, we are ruined. For (this will not 
do. And it is well said): 

A wise man should think of what is expedient, but he should 
also think of what is inexpedient. While the foolish heron was 
looking on, his young were eaten by the mongooses.” 159. 

(533) The son said: ‘‘(And) how was that?” His father replied: 


STORY 14: HERONS, SNAKE, AND MONGOOSE 


(534) (Once upon a time) in a certain (arjuna-)tree dwelt a 
pair of herons. (535) Now as often as they had young, (before 
their wings were grown) they were always eaten by a (monstrous) 
snake which came up the hollow trunk of the tree, (536) The 


21% 


324 Book I: Separation of Friends 


male heron lost his senses by reason of this grief, and abstaining 
from food went to the shore of a pond and sat there (in deep 
dejection). (537) (Then) a (certain) crab saw him there and 
said: ‘“‘(Uncle,) why are you downeast (today)? ”’ (538) He told 
(him) what had happened, how his young had been eaten. 
(539) But the crab comforted him [saying]: “(Sir,) I will tell 
you how you can kill him. (540) You know this mongoose-hole 
here; start from it and scatter fish-meat in an unbroken line 
up to the snake’s hole. (541) Then the mongooses will be greedy 
for this food, and they will be sure to come and find him (there), 
and (because of their natural hostility 4*) will kill him.” (542) 
This plan was adopted, and the mongooses followed the (path 
of the) fish-meat, and (, mindful of their ancient feud,) they 
killed the snake. (543) [But] having once found the way they 
followed it and came to the nest of the herons in the tree, and 
ate the herons’ young. 
(End of Story 14) 


(544) Therefore I say: “A wise man should think of what is 
expedient ’ &c. (545) Even after he had heard this story, Evil- 
wit (, blinded by avarice,) took his father by night (against 
his will) and put him in the hollow of the tree. (546) (Then) 
in the morning, after texts from the lawbooks had been read 
before the tree in the presence of the court officials, a voice 
came forth from the tree saying: “‘ Honest-wit took the money.” 
(547) (And) hearing this Honest-wit thot: ‘‘ How ean this be? 
It is monstrous and impossible that such a thing should happen. 
I will climb the tree itself and look into it.’’ (548) So he lookt 
into it, and he collected a heap of dry wood and leaves and 
filled the hollow of the tree and set fire to it. (549) And (when 
it blazed up) Evil-wit’s father, (with his body) half burnt, 
(his eyes bursting out,) shrieking piteously and almost dead, 
came out (from the hollow of the tree) and fell on the ground. 
(550) Then all gazed at him in astonishment, and they askt 
. him: (551) (“ Tell us, what does this mean? ’’) (552) (To which) 
he replied: ‘It is this wicked son of mine, (Evil-wit,) that has 
brought me to this plight.” (553) As he spoke these words he 


** Snakes and mongooses (ichneumons) are proverbial enemies, like cats 
and mice. 


Story 14.—Story 18.—Frame Story.—Story 15: Iron-eating Mice 325 


died. (554) Then the king’s judges ‘perceived the truth, and 
commanded that the money be given to Honest-wit, and impaled 


Evil-wit. 
(End of Story 13) 


(555) Therefore I say: “ Evil-wit and No-wit ” &. (556) And 
after telling this story Karataka said again (to Damanaka): 
“(Out upon you, fool!) You have shown yourself much too 
clever; you have burnt your own household. And this is well 
said: 

Rivers come to an end in salt water, friendly hearts come 
to an end in women’s quarrels, a secret comes to an end ina 
tattler, and families come to an end in evil sons. 160. 

(557) (Moreover,) if a man has two tongues in a single mouth, 
who would trust him? (And it is said:) 

Double-tongued and terrifying, utterly cruel and pitiless,—a 
scoundrel’s mouth, like a serpent’s, does nothing but harm. 161. 

(558) (Now) this action of yours endangers me also. How so? 

Do not trust a malicious man because you have long been 
intimate with him. A serpent will still. bite, tho it may have 
been kept and tended a long time. 162. 

An honest wise man should be cultivated; with a crafty wise 
man one should be on his guard; an honest fool, however, is 
to be treated with compassion; while a crafty fool should be 
shunned utterly. 163. 

(559) (Your performances have not only ruined your own 
family, but you have now committed an offense against your 
lord as well.) (560) Therefore, since you have reduced your 
(own) lord to this plight, anyone else would be as a blade of 
grass in your eyes. And it is said: 

Where mice eat a balance made of a thousand [pounds] of 
iron, there a falcon might carry off an elephant; why be sur- 
prised at [its carrying off] a boy?” 164. 

(561) Damanaka said: (And) how was that?” Said the other: 


STORY 15: IRON-EATING MICE 


(562) In a certain town there was a merchant’s son who had 
lost his money, (563) He set out for a far country to seek 
his fortune. (564) (And) he had (in his house) a balance made 


326 Book I: Separation of Friends 


of a thousand palas of iron (which he had inherited from 
his ancestors). (565) (And) he deposited this with another 
merchant’s son and went into a far country (to seek his fortune). 
(566) And because his luck was bad he returned without having 
made anything (even after trying a long time); and he askt 
from that [other merchant] the balance (which he had deposited 
with him). (567) But he (being avaricious) said: “ That (balance) 
has been eaten by mice.” (568) (Then) the other thot: ‘‘ (This 
is a strange thing!) How can mice eat a balance made of a 
thousand [pounds] of iron?” (569) And smiling inwardly he 
said: “Of course! Quite natural! (For) iron is (stimulating and) 
sweet (and soft); why should not the mice eat it?’ So he 
assented in words. (570) But the other, greatly delighted at 
heart, (began to offer him hospitality, with washing of the feet 
and so on, and) invited him to dinner. (571) (And there was 
a river not far from his house. Thither,) when the guest set 
out to bathe, his host also sent his (only) son (after him) with 
myrobalan-fruits anda bathrobe. (572) But the other, after bathing, 
(on his way back) hid the boy safely away in another friend’s 
house and returned to the merchant’s house. (573) And the 
merchant askt him: (574) ‘“‘ Where is my son that I sent after 
you? (He has not come back to my house.) (575) (Then) he 
replied: ‘‘ He was carried off by a falcon.” (576) Upon hearing 
this he was (greatly) dismayed, and (seized him harshly by 
the arm and) dragged him into court. (577) And he said: 
‘Help! (Help!) This man (is a villain and) has hidden my son 
(somewhere).’”’ (578) And the judges askt him (: ‘ What about 
this? What have you to say?”’) (579) He said (smiling): ‘‘ He 
was carried off by a falcon.” (580) (Then) they (were astonisht 
and) said: ‘‘(That is unheard-of!) How ean a falcon carry off 
a boy?” (581) Said he: “ What is there strange in that? 

Where mice eat a balance made of a thousand [pounds] of 
iron, there a faleon might carry off an elephant; why be sur- 
prised at [its carrying off] a boy?” 165. : 

(582) Hearing this, and having learned the facts, the judges 
said: ‘‘Give him his balance (of a thousand [pounds] of iron), 

* Most versions specify no unit of weight; the two Sanskrit ones which 


mention a unit agree on the pala, which is really only a fraction (not far 
from a quarter) of a pound. 


Story 15: Iron-eating Mice.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull 327 


and then he on his part will bring back the boy.” (Thereupon 
they both did so.) 
(End of Story 15) 


(583) Therefore I say: ‘‘[Where mice eat] a balance of a 
thousand [pounds] of iron” &e. (584) “(So what is the use of 
instructing you, since you are as void of understanding as a 
beast?) Wisdom spreads in a learned man, oil on water, (poison 
in the blood,) intimacy among the good, (affection among fond 
women,) a secret among the base, and nobility in the world of 
the distinguisht. (Because:) 

A man’s nobility lies not in the regulations of his caste *®; 
the fame of mortals has its roots in their conduct. Disrepute, 
which brings in its train a whole network of disasters, hundreds 
of them, pursues the ungrateful in this world and in the next. 166. 

(585) And as for your (constant) hostility*’ to all who show the 
finest qualities, this also is due to your natural temper. How so? 

As a rule in this world the base-born cease not to envy men of 
noble birth; those who are unlucky [in love] envy a favorite of 
women; stingy men envy the generous, dishonest men the honest, 
mean men the glorious; those who are afflicted with ugliness 
envy the beautiful; the poor envy the well-to-do, and fools envy 
him who is verst in all manner of learning. 167. And after all: 

It is worth while to instruct a man only if he understands 
what has once been said. But you are dull as a stone; what 
profit is there in instructing you? 168. 

(586) (Moreover, O fool,) it is not wise even to remain in 
your company. (Otherwise thru association with you some harm 
may perchance come to me too. And it is said:) 

By associating with good and evil persons a man acquires the 
virtues and vices [which they possess], even as the wind blowing 
over different places takes along good and bad odors. 169. 

(You are skillful only in malice, and a destroyer of friendship; 
nothing can turn out well where such as you are in control. 170.) 

(587) And also: (Malicious men get no advantage for them- 
selves, but only ruin. Even in dire straits the righteous never 
attempt anything that should not be done. For thus [it is said]:) 

“Or, “family.” 

47 Hertel’s text and translation (Tantrakhyayika A 119) are both wrong. 


328 Book I: Separation of Friends 


What should not be done should positively not be done; a wise 
man should not set his mind upon it. For even if tormented with 
extreme thirst, men do not drink water that lies in the road.” 171. 

(588) So speaking Karataka departed from his presence. 
(589) Now when Pingalaka had killed Saihjivaka, (590) his 
anger was cooled; he (wiped his blood-stained hand, and) said, 
sighing, tormented with grief and full of repentance: (591) 
“ Alas! It is a (very) wrong thing that I have done in killing 
Sathjivaka, who was like my other self. And it is said: 

As to the loss of a parcel of excellent land, or the loss of 
a wise servant—the loss of servants is the death of kings; lost 
land is more easily regained than servants.” 172. 

(592) (And) when Damanaka saw him (, Pingalaka,) thus 
(lamenting and) overcome with grief, he (crept up to him 
stealthily and) said: “Is this proper, (or is it good policy,) to 
grieve because you have killed your rival? And it is said: 

Be he father or brother, be he son or friend—he that threatens 
a king’s life must be killed, if the king will prosper. 173. 

A tender-hearted king, a brahman that eats everything,’ a 
disobedient woman, an ill-natured friend, a refractory servant, 
a negligent official-—-these must be shunned, and one who shows 
no gratitude. 174. 

(Go even a long journey where pleasure awaits you; ask a 
wise person, tho he be a child; give’ your very body to one in 
need who asks for it; cut off your very arm if it offend you. 175.) 

(593) (And, you know, the morality which is common to 
ordinary mortals is not required of kings. And it is said:) 

A kingdom cannot be ruled according to the common standards 
of men. For what are vices in men [in general], the same are 
virtues in a king. 176. And also: 

True and false, harsh and gentle in speech, savage and at 
the same time compassionate, avaricious and generous, lavish in 
spending yet taking in great amounts of wealth from many 
sources—like a harlot, the conduct of kings is changeful.” 177. 

(594) Being thus consoled by Damanaka, Pingalaka recovered 
his composure (and continued to enjoy the pleasures of 
sovereignty as before, with Damanaka as his minister). 


Here ends the First Book, called the Separation of Friends. 


*S Not observing the caste regulations of diet. 


BOOK II 


THE WINNING OF FRIENDS, OR, THE DOVE, 
CROW, MOUSE, TORTOISE, AND DEER 


(1) Now here begins this, the second book, called the Winning 
of Friends, of which this is the opening stanza: 

Without resources or property, the intelligent and friendly- 
minded soon gain their ends, like the crow, the tortoise, the 
deer, and the mouse. l. 

(2) The king’s sons said: “How was that?” Visnusarman 
told this story: 

(3) There was in the south-country a city named Mahilaropya. 
(4) Not far from it was a great silk-cotton tree, with a mighty 
trunk and numerous branches. (Birds came from all parts and 
spent the night in it.) (5) And in it dwelt a crow named Light- 
wing. (6) Once he went out to get food early in the morning, 
and saw coming near the tree a fowler of ferocious aspect; 
(his fingers and toes were crackt and his body was shagey;) 
he carried a staff and a net in his hand, and seemed like Death’s 
double. And when the crow saw him he was perturbed at heart 
and thot: (7) ‘ What does this wretch mean to do? Is it I whom 
he seeks to injure, or has he some other purpose?’ So he 
stayed there and watcht. (8) But the hunter came up to the 
tree, spread out the net, scattered kernels of grain, and placed 
himself in hiding not far away. (9) Now a dove-king named 
Brightneck, with a following of a thousand doves, as he was 
flying around there in the air, spied those kernels. (10) He 
succumbed to the temptation and flew down into the net to get 
the food, and was caught by the meshes of cords, along with 
his whole following. (11) But the hunter was delighted at this 
sight and ran forward (brandishing his club). (12) Now Bright- 
neck’s followers were fluttering about. this way and that, and 
were pulling the net in various directions with their beaks and 


330 Book Il: Winning of Friends 


feet; and (seeing this) Brightneck said to them: (13) ‘ This is 
a (great) disaster (that has fallen upon us). There is only one 
means of safety in this case: we must all work in concord and 
fly up (into the air) and go far away. Otherwise we cannot 
carry off the net.”” (14) Amd so they did (, hoping to save their 
lives); they carried off the net and put behind them the distance 
of an arrow-shot, flying upward into the heavens, and then set 
off thru the air. (15) But the hunter, when he saw his net 
carried off by the birds, thot: “ This is an unheard-of thing! ”’; 
and he ran along with upturned face, thinking: 

‘While these birds are united, to be sure, they can carry 
off my net; but when they begin to disagree, then they will 
come into my power.” 2. 

(16) But when Brightneck saw him (, the cruel wretch,) 
following, he began to go faster. (17) Lightwing for his part 
gave up all thot of food and followed (hard) after the flock 
of doves, moved by curiosity, and thinking: ‘ What will this 
wretch do about the doves?” (18) But Brightneck, realizing 
the hunter’s purpose, said to his companions: ‘“ This wretch of 
a hunter is following us and has not given up hope. So the 
best thing for us is simply to get out of his sight. We must 
(fly up very high and) travel over rugged country, over hills 
and woods.” (19) So the birds flew out of sight (taking the 
net with them). Then the hunter, perceiving that they had gone 
out of his sight, gave up hope and turned back. (20) But when 
Brightneck saw that he had turned back, he said to them: 
(21) “(Look you, that wretch of a hunter has turned back. So) 
it is better for us (also to turn back and) to go straight to 
Mahilaropya. (22) (To the northeast of) there dwells a (dear) 
friend of mine, a mouse named Goldy. (23) We will go to him 
without delay; he will cut our bonds, (and he has the power) 
to get us out of our trouble.” (24) ‘ Agreed,” they said; and 
when they came near Goldy’s hole they flew down. (25) Now 
the shrewd Goldy, fearing mishap, had made a hole with a 
hundred openings, and was living in it. (26) (His heart) being 
alarmed by the [moise of the] birds’ flight, Goldy stayed in 
hiding. (27) But Brightneck went up to an entrance of the 
hole and said: ‘“‘ Friend Goldy, come here, please.” (28) (And 
hearing this) Goldy, still keeping well within (his hole-strong- 


IFrame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer 331 


hold), said: ‘‘ Who are you, Sir?” (29) The other said: ‘I am 
Brightneck, your friend.’’ (30) But when he heard this, his 
soul was greatly rejoist (so that his hair stood on end all over 
his body), and in great excitement he went out, and saw 
Brightneck with his followers bound in the thongs [of the net], 
and said in dismay:: (31) “‘My friend, what does this mean? 
Tell me (, tell me).” (32) Said he: “ My friend, you are an 
intelligent person; why do you ask such a question? (It is said:) 

Whencesoever, and by whatever means, and whenever, and 
however, and whatever, and to whatever extent, and wherever, 
a man does—be the deed good or evil; even thence, and by 
that means, and then, and thus, and that, and to that extent, 
and there—it comes back to him by the power of fate.” 3. 

(33) Goldy said: “ That is very true. 

From a distance of a hundred and ten leagues a bird sees 
here the carrion-flesh; that same bird, when its time arrives, 
sees not the snare-thong. 4. 

When I see how the moon and the sun are subject to eclipse, 
and how elephants and serpents too are taken captive, and how 
wise men are poverty-stricken; verily, mighty is Fate! is my 
thot. 5. 

Tho they roam only in the air, birds come to grief; fish are 
caught by those who know how, even out of the deep water 
of the sea. Of what account are good deeds or bad conduct in 
this world, and what virtue is there in the attainment of good 
standing? For Fate stretches forth its arm in calamity and 
seizes even from afar.” 6. 

(34) So speaking Goldy began to cut Brightneck’s thong. 
(35) Brightneck said: ‘“‘ My friend, (do) not (do) so; first cut 
the thongs of my followers, and afterwards mine.”’ (386) When 
he had said this for the second and the third time, Goldy said 
impatiently: (37) ‘‘ My friend, how is it that you devote yourself 
to freeing others from distress, taking no account of your own?” 
(38) Said he: ‘My friend, be not angry. All these (poor 
wretches) have deserted other leaders and attacht themselves 
to me. So how ean I fail to show them so much consideration, 
at least? (39) Now before you cut my thong, you will not be 
too tired to eut theirs; while if mine were cut first you might 
perhaps become tired, sir; and that would not be right. That 


332 Book IL: Winning of Friends 


is why I spoke as I did.’”’ (40) When he heard this Goldy was 
overjoyed, and said: ‘‘I made trial of you (in speaking thus); 
[I see that] you are rightly eredited with the qualities on which 
dependants rely. 

Inasmuch as you show compassion to your dependants and 
readiness to share [the same lot] with them, by reason of this 
your disposition you are fit to rule over the whole universe.” 7. 

(41) So saying he cut all their thongs. (42) But Brightneck, 
freed from his captivity, took leave of Goldy; and having 
received his farewell greetings he flew up and went with his 
following to his own home, Goldy (for bis part) entered into his 
stronghold. (43) But Lightwing, who had seen all, how Bright- 
neck was freed from captivity, was astonisht and reflected: 
‘‘How wise this Goldy is, and how powerful and well-equipt 
his stronghold! (44) Now it would be well for me also to make 
friends with Goldy (, like Brightneck); for I (too) might get 
caught in a net or suffer a like misfortune.” (45) With this 
resolve he came down from the tree, approacht the entrance 
of the hole, and called Goldy by his name (, which he had 
already learned): “ Friend Goldy (, come here, please)!’ (46) 
Hearing this Goldy (thot: ‘Can it be that there is still some 
other dove who is not wholly freed, and who is calling me by 
name? ’’ And he) said: ‘‘ Who are you, Sir?” (47) Said he: 
‘Tam acrow named Lightwing.” (48) Hearing this Goldy lookt 
out from inside at the crow (who had come to the door of 
his hole), and said: ‘“‘Go away (from this place)!” (49) The 
crow said: “I saw how Brightneck was freed by your aid, and 
I wish to be friends with you. (50) Such a calamity, may per- 
chance happen to me too, and then I may be set free by your 
help. So you must (without fail) favor me with your friendship, 
sir.” (51) Goldy said with a laugh: ‘‘ How can there be friend- 
ship between you and me? 

What can’t be done, can’t be done; only that which can be 
done can be done. A wagon will not go on water, nor a ship 
on dry land. 8. 

A wise man should try to join only things which can be 
joined in this world. I am [your] food; you, sir, are [my] 
eater; how shall there be friendship [between us]? ” 9. 


(52) The crow said: 


. . € : 
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise and Deer 333 


“Even if I ate you I should not get much food; while by 
letting you live I might save my own life, even as Brightneck 
did, noble sir, 10. 

(53) Therefore it is not right that you, sir, should scorn my 
request. 

Trust may be placed even in beasts, and an alliance with 
them resolved upon, if they are righteous, by reason of their 
good character, as with you and Brightneck. 11. 

The soul of a righteous person, even tho he be offended, 
does not suffer change; for the water of the ocean cannot be 
heated with a torch of straw. 12. 

Your noble qualities spread themselves abroad even without 
being celebrated; fragrant jasmine, even when covered up, yet 
exhales perfume.” 13. 

(54) (Hearing this) Goldy said: ‘(Sir,) you are fickle (by 
your very nature. And it is said): 

The fickle person is not faithful to himself; how can be be 
faithful to others? Therefore the fickle person is sure to ruin 
all undertakings. 14. 

(55) (Therefore leave this place, where you are blocking my 
stronghold).” (56) Said he: “ (Friend,) why these (harsh words 
about fickle and not fickle)? (I have been so attracted by your 
excellent qualities, sir, that) I must without fail make friends 
with you (; this is my firm resolve).” (57) Goldy said: ‘ Why, 
how can I make friends with you who are my enemy? And 
it is said: 

One should by no means make an alliance with an enemy, 
even tho the bond be very close; water, tho heated very hot, 
still puts out fire.’”’ 15. 

(58) The crow said: ‘ Why, I never so much as saw you 
before; how ean I be your enemy? So why talk nonsense? ”’ 
(59) (Then) Goldy (smiled and) said: ‘‘ My dear sir, you must 
know that there are two kinds of enmity in this world, as the 
books explain, natural and casual. And you are my natural 
enemy.” The crow said: ‘‘ Well, I should like to hear the 
distinguishing marks of the two kinds of enmity. (So tell me.) ” 
Said he: ‘‘ Well, casual enmity is produced by a specific cause, 
and it is removed by an act of kindness suited to the cause; 
while innate enmity, on the other hand, is never removed by 


04 Book If: Winning of Friends 


any means. (And) this innate enmity, again, is of two kinds, 
one-sided enmity and mutual enmity.” The crow said: ‘“ What 
is the distinction between them?” Said he: ‘If either may 
slay the other and either may be devoured by the other, that 
is mutual enmity, because the injury is mutual; as in the case 
of the lion and the elephant. But if one slays and devours [the 
other] for no previous cause, and the other does him no injury, 
harms him not and devours him not, that is one-sided enmity, 
due to no cause; as in the case of (the horse and the buffalo,) 
the cat and the mouse, the serpent and the mongoose. What 
injury does (the horse do to the buffalo, or) the serpent (do) 
to the mongoose, or the mouse to the cat?—So why speak of 
making an alliance which is utterly impossible? Moreover: 

‘He is my friend,’ you say? What reliance can you place 
in an evil man for that reason? ‘I have done a great deal for 
him ’—that is of no avail. ‘He is a kinsman’—that is a thread- 
bare tale. For people are controlled by the merest bit of coin. 
16. (And again:) 

Tho he may have been cherisht and favored with many 
benefits, dearly loved, and saved from countless mishaps, because 
of his evil nature an unrighteous man does not beget the smallest 
particle of confidence; he is like a snake sleeping in one’s 
bosom. 17. 

If a man, even with a great store of wealth,’ puts trust in 
enemies, or in a wife that has no affection for him, his life is 
ended then and there. 18. 

But one who is willing to make an alliance again with a 
friend that has once proved false, receives death unto himself, 
as a she-mule that receives the seed.? 19. 

It is no cause for trust that you have given no offense. For 
malicious men are a source of danger even to the noble.” 20. 

(60) The crow said: ‘‘ I have heard all that. But nevertheless 
I am going to make friends with you wholesouledly. (And this 
is possible.) For it is said: | 


1 That is, according to Hertel, even if he showers wealth upon them. 
But perhaps rather, even if he be very well provided with worldly goods, 
which would make his fall the less to be expected. 

2 The traditional Hindu belief is that she-mules can foal, but at the cost 
of their lives. . 


| Ld 9O¢ 
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer 1519) 


Union of all metals results from their melting, of beasts and 
birds from a specific cause, of fools from fear and avarice, 
[but] of the righteous from mere sight [of one another]. 21. 
(How then ?) 

Like an earthen vessel a base man is easily sundered and 
hard to put together, but a righteous man is like a golden 
vessel, hard to sunder, but easy to put together. 22. 

(61) Whom else than you, sir, could I find markt by these 
virtues? So it is fitting, in spite of what you say, that you 
should unite with me. If you do not, I will starve myself to 
death at your door.’ (62) (Hearing this) Goldy said: ‘ You 
have convinst me; (so) be it as you wish. (63) But I spoke 
as I did (to test your disposition,) so that, if now you should 
slay me, at least you might not think that I was a fool and 
that you had got the better of me by cleverness of wit. (Since 
I have proved this to you,) now my head is in your lap.” 
(64) So saying he began to come out; but when he had come 
out only a little, (half way,) he stopt again. (65) (Then) the 
crow said: ‘(My friend,) is there even yet something that 
makes you distrust me, so that you do not come out of your 
stronghold?” (66) Said he: ‘(1 have something that I must 
say.) For in this world people live either according to the 
heart or with an eye to profit. (These two are opposed to 
each other.) Union with the heart is advantageous; but not 
[union for] profit, A man may offer abundant sesame-grains 
to partridges, but he does it in order to destroy them; is that 
meant as a favor to them? Is it not rather to slay them utterly? 

Benefit is no proof of friendship, nor is injury a sure sign 
of enmity. The only determining factor in this case is the 
heart—whether it is good or evil. 23. 

(67) Now that I have come to know your heart I have no 
fear of you. But yet some other friend of yours might per- 
chance destroy me while I am off my guard.” (To which) the 
other replied: 

‘A friend that is acquired by destroying a virtuous friend 
—him one should cast out, like millet that a the hills of 
rice,” 24, 

(68) And hearing this [Goldy] (quickly) came out, mai they 
(respectfully) greeted each other. 


306 Book II: Winning of Friends 


Forming a friendship close and inseparable as the nails and 
the flesh [of the fingers], the mouse and the crow entered into 
an alliance, recognizing the same friends and foes. 25. 

(69) They stayed there some time; and after Goldy had 
entertained the crow with food, he took leave of him, and 
entered his home; and the crow too went his way. (70) But 
Lightwing went into a (certain) forest thicket and saw there 
a wild buffalo that had been killed by a tiger; and (when he 
had eaten as much as he pleased on the spot,) he took a piece 
of the meat and went (straight) to Goldy, and called to him: 
“(Come here, come here, friend Goldy,) eat this meat that I 
have brought you.” (71) And Goldy too had diligently pre- 
pared a (very) large heap of (huskt) millet-kernels for the 
crow, and he said: ‘‘ My friend, eat these kernels, which I 
have gathered for you by my own efforts.” (72) (And) then, 
tho both had eaten enuf, each ate [what was offered] to show 
his love for the other. And day by day they spent their time in 
friendship (such as the world rarely sees, exchanging courteous 
inquiries and talking confidentially with each other). (73) Now 
once upon a time the crow came and said to Goldy: (74) 
‘Friend (Goldy), Iam leaving this place and going elsewhere.” 
(Said he: “Friend, what for?’’ The other replied: “ Because 
I am tired of this life.” Goldy replied: “ Why so?” Said he:) 
(75) “ Every day I have to get nourishment for my beak; and 
we birds are in terror of being caught in nets, a mishap which 
we see happening ever and anon. So I am done with this 
‘manner of living.” (Goldy said: ‘Then whither will you go?” 
He replied:) (76) ‘Not far from here, in a forest (thicket), 
there is a large lake. There dwells a dear friend of mine, a 
tortoise named Sluggish (, whose friendship I won long ago). 
(77) And he will support me with fish and other dainty foods; 
I shall pass the time with him in comfort, undisturbed.” (78) 
Hearing this Goldy said: ‘‘I too will go with you, sir; I too 
am tired of life in this place.” (79) Said the crow: ‘‘ And why 
are you tired of life?” (80) Goldy said: “(Well,) it is a long 
story; after we have come to that place, I will tell (you all 
of) it.” (81) While he was yet speaking the crow pickt up his 
friend in his beak and earried him to (that) large lake. (82) 
Now Sluggish saw (from a distance) the crow approaching 


‘4 ° 2a 
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer dd7 


(with the mouse). Being prudent,®? he wondered who it was, 
and, to be on the safe side, (jumpt off from the shore and) 
dived into the water. (83) Lightwing in turn was frightened 
by the splash in the water, and (wondering what it meant) he 
set Goldy down again on the beach and flew up info a (large) 
tree (to reconnoitre). And (perching on the tree) he said: (84) 
‘‘(Ho,) Sluggish, come here (, come here)! I am your friend 
the crow (named Lightwing), and I have come here eager [to 
see you] after this long absence. So come and embrace me.” 
(85) When Sluggish heard this and understood what it meant, 
(his flesh bristled with joy and his eyes were suffused with 
glad tears. And) he came out quickly from the water, saying: 
“Torgive my offense that I did not know you.” And he 
embraced Lightwing, who came down from the tree. (86) 
And after he had joyfully offered hospitality to both of them, 
‘he askt the crow: ‘‘(Comrade,) whence do you come? How 
is it that you have come with a mouse to an uninhabited 
forest? And who is this mouse?” (87) The crow said: 
“(Comrade,) this mouse is named Goldy. Only one who 
had a thousand tongues could describe (in due fashion) the 
extent of his virtues—blessings on him! (And well has this 
been said:) | 

Is it not characteristic of the noble that their affections last 
till the end of their lives, that their anger is gone in a moment, 
and that their generous deeds are quite unselfish?” 26. 

(88) So saying he told (him) the whole story of Brightneck’s 
liberation and of his own alliance with the mouse. (89) But 
when Sluggish heard this praise of Goldy’s good qualities, he 
was astonisht, and askt Goldy: ‘“‘ (Now) why did you become 
so tired of life, (or what manner of ill-usage did you suffer,) 
that you were moved to abanbon your native land (and your 
friends, kinsmen, and spouse)?’ (90) The crow said: “I too 
askt him this very question before; (but) he said the story was 
too long and he would tell it (when he arrived) at this place; 
(and he has not [yet] told it even to me.) So now, friend 
Goldy, tell us (both together why you became tired of life).” 
(Then) Goldy told his story: 


3 Literally, ‘‘ knowing times and places”. 


Edgerton, Paicatantra. II. 


bo 
bo 


338 Book II: Winning of Friends 


STORY 1: MOUSE AND TWO MONKS 


(91) (In the south country) there is a city named Mahilaropya. 
Not far from it is a monk’s hermitage, and in it dwelt a monk 
named Tuft-ear. (92) And at begging-time he was wont to get 
his alms-bowl filled from that city with various dainties (, con- 
taining dried sugar and molasses and pomegranates, and delicious 
with sticky substances), Then he would return to his hermitage 
and, having (formally) broken his fast, would put away the 
food that was left from the meal* (carefully concealed) in his 
alms-bowl for his servants who came in the morning, and 
would hang this (alms-bowl) on a wall-peg and go to sleep 
(when night came). (93) And I would jump up every day and 
eat that food; and I and my followers lived on it. (94) The 
monk was in despair because I kept eating it, however care- 
fully he put it away. In his dread of me he kept moving it 
from one place to another and yet higher place; but in spite 
of all I had no trouble in getting it and eating it, (95) Now 
(while this was going on, after some time) it happened that 
a (dear) friend of his, a monk named Fat-paunch,® came to 
him (to be his guest). (96) Tuft-ear received him with the 
proper forms of welcome; and when he had performed religious 
rites in due fashion,® (97) (then) in the evening he sat on his 
couch and askt Fat-paunch, who had gone to bed: “ Since 
the time when you and I parted, sir, what various regions or 
penance-groves have you wandered thru?” (98) The other 
began his story: ‘‘ It was on the festival of the full moon of 
the month Karttika, when we had been bathing at the exalted 
pilgrimage-place of Puskara, that I was parted from you because 
of the great crowd of people. After that I wandered all up 
and down the Ganges, to Hardwar, Allahabad, Benares, and 
other [places of pilgrimage]; in short, I visited the whole earth, 


* This was a violation of the rules for monks, who were forbidden to 
accept more food than they could eat at the time. Both monks in this story 
are represented thruout as hypocrites; compare the next two notes, 

® Literally, ‘‘ Big-buttocks ”. 

® Either this is an ironical expression for “after they had eaten a hearty 
meal”? (monks were supposed to eat very little and very simply); or else 
(as indicated by certain versions) the original may have contained a phrase 
of that meaning, instead of the phrase translated above. 


Story 1: Mouse and two Monks.—Story 2: Huskt for huskt Sesame 9309 


from sea to sea.” (99) And while he was in the midst of the 
story, Tuft-ear kept constantly striking the alms-bowl with. 
a split-bamboo stick and making it ring, to frighten me away. 
(100) This interfered with the telling of the story, so that Fat- 
paunch was angered and said: (101) “I am doing you a courtesy 
by telling you my story, sir; why are you so discourteous (and 
apparently insolent) as to seem bored with my tale and to fix 
your mind on something else?’ (102) Tuft-ear (was embarrast 
and) said: “ My friend, do not be angry; I am not bored; but 
look, this mouse, my enemy, is always jumping up and reaching 
my alms-bowl, no matter how high I hang it, and he eats the 
remains of the alms in it. (And I cannot prevent him in any 
way.) (103) I keep striking the alms-bowl ever and anon with 
this split bamboo to frighten away that mouse; that is the 
only reason.” (104) Said he: ‘‘Is this the only mouse here, or 
are there other mice too?” (105) He replied: “I do not trouble 
about other mice; it is just this one scoundrel that is forever 
tricking me, like a sorcerer.” (106) (Hearing this) the other 
replied: “ Such power does not belong to a mere mouse; (n0,) 
there must be some reason for this. (And it is said:) 

Not for nothing does Mother Sandilt trade sesame for 
sesame, huskt for likewise huskt; there must be some reason for 
this.” 27. 

(107) Tuft-ear said: “‘ And how was that?” Said he: 


STORY 2: HUSKT FOR HUSKT SESAME 


(108) Onee when the rainy-season was at hand, I entreated 
lodging of a brahman in a certain town (, that I might get a 
fixt home).‘ And I abode in his house. (109) Now one day I 
awoke towards morning and heard the brahman and his wife 
talking behind their screen; and I listened to what they said. 
The brahman was saying: (110) ‘‘(Wife,) tomorrow will be a 
day of the moon’s change; so do you offer hospitality to brah- 
mans, to the best of our ability.” (111) She replied (in a very 
shrewish tone of voice): ‘‘ How can you entertain brahmans, 
when you are so hopelessly poor!” (112) When she said this 
to him, (he felt as if he were plunged into a well, and had 


* During the rains, when wandering is not customary, 
22% 


340 Book IL: Winning of Friends 


not a word to say. But after a long pause) he replied: “ Wife, 
you should not say that. (Even poor people should, at proper 
seasons, give something, be it little or much, to worthy persons. 
And it is said:) 

Always be thrifty, but do not be too thrifty. Because he was 
too thrifty, the jackal was killed by the bow.” 28. 

(113) Said she: “ (And) how was that?’’ He replied: 


STORY 3: TOO GREEDY JACKAL 


(114) In a certain place there was a hunter who lived on 
flesh. And he arose early one morning, fitted on arrow [to his 
bow], and set out for the woods to hunt. (115) Very soon he 
slew a deer and took (the flesh of) it and turned homeward. 
(116) (As he was coming down a steep bank to a ford,) he 
saw a boar as big as a young buffalo, with uplifted tusk (, his 
body smeared with lumps of mud). (117) When he saw it he 
was frightened (by reason of the evil omen), and turned back, 
but found the way blockt by the boar; so he threw on the 
ground the (deer’s) flesh (rolled up in a bundle), (118) drew 
his bow, and shot at him an arrow (smeared with poison), 
which (pierst his neck and) went thru to the other side. (119) 
But the boar, tho stunned by the wound, roused himself to a 
last furious attack and wounded the hunter in the entrails so 
severely that he gave up the ghost, and fell (on the ground, 
his body torn in three parts. Then, having killed the hunter, 
the boar also was overcome by the pain of the arrow-wound, 
and died). (120) Shortly after this a jackal named Longhowl, 
his belly lean with hunger, as he wandered about in search of 
food, came to that place and saw the deer, the hunter, and 
the boar (dead). (121) And when he saw them he was overjoyed 
and thot: (Ha!) Fate is kind to me; it has given me all this 
unexpected food. (122) I will eat it in such a way that I may 
live on it a long time. 

Since food and drink are not always available for mortals, - 
when one has got a generous supply of provender, he should 
make use of it little by little. 29. 

(123) So first I shall (put by the deer, the boar, and the 
hunter in a pile, and) eat this sinew-cord on the tip of the 


Story 3: Two greedy Jackal.— Story 2.—Story 1: Mouse and two Monks 341 


bow.” (124) So saying he took the cord of the bow in his 
mouth and began to eat (the sinew). (125) (Whereupon) as the 
cord was severed he was pierst (by the bow) in the throat,® 
and perisht. 

(End of Story 3) 


(126) Therefore I say: “Always be thrifty” &e. (127) (And 
hearing this) the brahman’s wife said: ‘(Well then,) I have a 
bit of sesame and a little rice; (128) do you get up early in 
the morning and go to the woods and get firewood and kusa- 
grass and the other things needed, and I (along with this pupil 
{of yours], Kamandaki,) will prepare a gruel for three brahmans.”’ 
(129) So in the morning she huskt the sesame and spread it 
out in the sunlight, setting Kamandaki in charge of it and 
tellmg him to watch it. (130) Thereupon, while she was busy 
with household duties, (Kamandaki failed to pay attention, and) 
a dog came and nibbled at the sesame and defiled® it, (131) 
Seeing this she said: ‘‘ Kamandaki, this is a bad thing that has 
happened; it will keep us from entertaining the brahmans. 
(132) But after all—go you and exchange this sesame (, huskt 
as it is,) for black sesame, and come: back (quickly; I will 
make a black gruel instead). (133) This was done, and 
Kamandaki came to the very same house which I had entered 
to beg alms, and tried to exchange the sesame (saying: ‘Take 
this sesame!”’). (134) While the trade was in process, the master 
of the house came in, and said: ‘On what terms are you 
trading this sesame?’ She said to him: “TI have got sesame 
of equal value, white for black.’’ Then he (smiled and) said: 
“There must be some reason for this.”” Therefore I say: ‘Not 
for nothing does Mother Sandili”, &e. 


(End of Story 2) 


(135) When the monk had told this story he said: “ Tuft- 
ear, in this case too there must be some reason why this mouse 
has such irresistible power and can eat the alms[-food]. (136) 

8 Literally ‘“‘palate” (some versions read “mouth”, “neck”, “breast”, 
“heart”’). 


® The sesame was defiled because it had been toucht by a do 
animal. See Addenda et Corrigenda to Volume 1. 


o, an unclean 


oD? 


342 - Book II: Winning of Friends 


Have you perchance a spade?” Said he: “Certainly I have (, 
here is one all made of iron, with a fine handle). (137) And 
when it was brought to him he (tied on his girdle and set his 
lips firmly and) demanded: ‘‘By what way does he come?” 
And being told this he started to dig up my hole (with the 
spade). (138) Now at the very beginning I had overheard their 
private talk and, being curious, I had stopt to listen (, giving 
up all thot of food). (189) But when he began to search out 
my stronghold, then I realized: ‘This villain has discovered 
the entrance to my hole.’ (140) I had got possession of some 
gold that had been placed there long ago (by a usurer), and 
by its power I felt myself strong. (141) But that villain traced 
the way to my hole and found the money and took it, and 
returned to the hermitage, and said to Tuft-ear: ‘This, priest, 
is that gold of his; itis by the power of this?® that he jumps 
up even to an [otherwise] impossible place.” And they divided 
it half and half and sat down and took their ease. (142) 
Having suffered this disaster I thot: “If perchance they should 
make a light while I am here, they would surely catch me 
and kill me.” So I left that place and located my stronghold 
elsewhere. (143) And the other [mice], who were my followers, 
came and said to me: ‘‘Sir Goldy, we that live with you are 
grievously hungry; we have not a single bite of anything to 
eat; even at the end of the day we have not found anything. 
So be good enuf to get us something to eat this very day.” 
(144) I agreed, and went with them to the hermitage. (145) 
Then Tuft-ear heard the noise of my followers, and once more 
he began to strike the alms-bowl with the split-bamboo stick. 
(146) His friend said to him: ‘“‘The mouse is undone now; 
why do you keep swinging your stick from time to time even 
yet? (Stop it; have done!)” (147) (Then) the monk replied: 
‘‘My friend, this mouse, my enemy, keeps coming back again 
and again, (148) (For fear of him I am doing so.)” Then the 
guest smiled and said: ‘‘(Friend,) be not afraid, his power of 
jumping up has departed along with his money. (For) this is 
the unvarying rule with all living beings.” (149) Now when I 
heard this (I was enraged, and) I jumpt with all my might in 


© Or, with the reading parenthetized in the text, “it is just by the power 
of his heart.” 


Story 1: Mouse and two Monks 343 © 


the direction of the alms-bowl; but nevertheless I failed to 
reach it, and fell to the ground. Then he, my enemy, seeing 
me, (laught and) said to Tuft-ear: (See, my friend, see! "Tis 
a sight worth seeing. For it is said:) 

By wealth it is that every man becomes powerful, and by 
wealth he becomes learned; behold how this villain of a mouse 
has become like his own kind again. 30. 

(150) (So sleep undisturbed;) the cause of his power of jump- 
ing up has past into our hands (alone).” (151) Hearing this I 
reflected (in my heart): “It is the truth that he has spoken. 
(For now) my power is diminisht (and my courage and vigor 
are lost), and even to get my food I have not the power to 
jump up (so much as a finger’s length).”’ (152) And I heard 
how my followers were murmuring to each other: ‘Come, let 
us depart; this fellow cannot even support his own belly, to say 
nothing of other people’s. (So what is the use of waiting on him?)” 
(153) (Then I went to my own abode, thinking ‘So far it has 
gone!’’ And in the morning) every one of them went over to my 
rivals (, saying “That fellow is poor!’”’). That was the way my 
followers behaved; not one of them came to see me. And when I 
lookt, those same followers of mine, seeing me before their very 
eyes, were playing with my rivals, shouting cheerfully to each 
other and clapping their hands. And I reflected: ‘So it goes! 

He who has money has friends; he who has money has 
kinsmen; he who has money is a man in the world; and he 
who has money is a scholar. 31. (And again:) 

When a man is stript of wealth, and his understanding is 
weak, all his undertakings fail, like little brooks in summer. 32. 

When a man is deprived of money, his friends desert him, 
and his sons, and his wife, and his brothers. When he gets 
rich, back they come to him again. I’or money is a man’s [only] 
kinsman in this world. 33. 

Empty is the house of a man without a son; empty is the 
heart of a man who has not a faithful friend; empty are [all] 
quarters for a fool; everything is empty for a poor man, 34. 

He has the same faculties unimpaired, the same name, the 
same mind uninjured, the same voice; he is the same man, and 
yet, when he loses the radiance of wealth, he suddenly becomes 
another: a curious thing is this. 39. 


344 Book IL: Winning of Friends 


(154) (So what now would it be best for me to do, in my 
present plight?) Since (the fruit of my past deeds has turned 
out thus, and) I have lost my money, it is by all means best 
for me to stay no longer in this place. (And it is said:) 

Let a man dwell ina place that is honorable, and not cleave 
to one that is dishonorable. Let him shun even a celestial 
palace! in association with gods, if it be not honorable.” 36, 

(155) (But after saying this I reflected further as follows:) 
‘‘Shall I then beg for alms of some one? Nay, that would be 
worse yet; it would mean the life of a beggar. For: 

A crooked tree that grows in salty earth, gnawed by worms, 
its bark stript off by a forest fire,—even its existence is better 
than a beggar’s. 37. 

Stammering in the throat, sweat on the countenance, pallor 
and trembling—the same signs that mark a dying man mark 
also a beggar. 38. 

It is the home of wretchedness; it steals away the mind; it 
breeds false suspicions; it is a synonym of death, the dwelling- 
place of misery, the chief store-house of apprehensions; it is 
insignificance incarnate, the seat of disasters, and robs the 
proud of their dignity; all this is what the beggar’s estate 
means for the wise. I cannot see that it is anything else than 
hell. 39. And again: - | 

Without wealth a man becomes diffident; afflicted with diffi- 
dence, he loses his dignity; without dignity, he is ill-used; from 
ill-usage he comes to despair; despairing, he becomes a prey 
to anguish; if his soul is in anguish his mind gives way; when 
his mind is gone he goes to ruin. Behold, poverty is the source 
of all woes! 40. Likewise: 

Better to thrust both hands into the enraged jaws of a serpent; 
better also to drink poison and go to sleep in the house of 
Death; better to throw oneself down from the brow of a lofty 
mountain and be dasht in a hundred pieces—than to make 
oneself comfortable on money begged from base men. 41, 

It is better that a man who has lost his means should feed 
the fire with his life, than to beg of a mean and churlish 
man. 42, 


 Vimana: the word is also, punningly, understood as meaning “lacking 
in honor” (vitmdna), 


Story 1: Mouse and two Monks 345 


(156) (And) now, since things have come to such a pass, 
by what (other) means could I possibly keep alive? By theft 
perhaps? But that also is worse yet, for it means taking the 
goods of another. Because: 

Better to keep silence than to speak a word that is false; 
better to be a eunuch than to go after another’s wife; better 
to give up the breath of life than to take delight in slander ; 
better to live on alms than to enjoy goods stolen from others. 43. 

(157) Then shall I support myself by the doles of charity? 
That would be terrible; that also is a second gate of death. (For:) 

For a sick man, for one in long exile, for one who eats 
another’s bread, and for one who sleeps in another’s house, to 
be alive is death, and death for them is rest. 44. 

(158) Therefore it is clear that I must get back that same 
money (which Fat-paunch stole). For I saw how those two 
scoundrels put the casket of money under their pillow. I will 
bring that wealth back to my own stronghold, so that I may 
once more get the sovereignty that was formerly mine, by the 
marvelous power of the money.” (159) (And) so thinking I went 
there in the night, and while he was sound asleep I (crept up 
and) made a hole in the casket. (160) But just then the monk 
awoke, and straightway he hit me on the head with his stick 
(of split-bamboo). (161) With a remnant of my life left, I made 
shift to get away (and returned to my hole) without being 
killed. (162) Yet once more, after a long time, my hopes revived 
and I took courage and crept up near the dinars; but he struck 
me such a merciless blow on the head with his club that to 
this very day I shudder at the sight of such people even in 
dreams. And see this wound on my head, which, was made at 
that time! And this is well said: 

When a man gets into a dire calamity, so that he runs a 
risk of losing his life outright, in the face of present danger 
he will know nothing of hateful riches, and longs [only] for 
his life. But when he is saved, then for the sake of riches he 
once more rushes into another calamity. In their eagerness for 
life and wealth, men hazard each for the sake of the other. 45. 

(163) After many reflections of this sort I decided to let that 
wealth of mine go, and I ceast from my thirst for it. And this 
is well said: 


346 Book Il: Winning of Friends 


Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eye. Righteousness 
is true nobility, not birth in a noble family. Contentment is true 
prosperity. True wisdom consists in desisting from what cannot 
be accomplisht. 46. A 

All fortune belongs to him who has a contented mind. Surely 
the whole earth is covered with leather for him whose feet are 
encased in shoes. 47, 

The joy of those whose minds are at peace, because they 
have drunk their fill of the nectar of contentment, is far beyond 
the reach of those who are ever rushing hither and yon in their 
greed for gold. 48. 

A hundred leagues is not far to a man who is driven by 
cupidity; but the contented man pays no heed to money that 
comes into his very hand. 49. 

(164) So since wealth is unattainable by any means, discernment 
is (really) the best course. And it is said: 

What is religion? Compassion for all living creatures. What 
is happiness for people in this world? Good health. What is 
affection? A kind disposition. What is wisdom? Discern- 
ment. 50. 

(165) So thinking I came into an uninhabited forest. There 
I saw Brightneck caught in a net, and after I had set him free 
as you have heard, (by the grace of my acquired merit) 
Lightwing here favored me with his friendly attentions. And 
some time after this he (, Lightwing,) came to me and askt 
me to come hither. And so I came, (along) with him, to visit 
you. (So this was why I became weary of life. Moreover:) 

The entire threefold universe, including deer, serpents, and 
antelopes, gods, demons, and men—all alike live [just] by taking 
nourishment before midday. 51. 

Whether he be a conqueror of the whole earth, or whether 
he have sunk to a degraded condition—a man who would 
eat must, when the time comes, get his little measure of 
rice. 52. 

What intelligent man, pray, would do an odious act for the 
sake of this [body, or life], when the outcome of it [the body, 
or life] is evil, has a base end, and comes to naught? 53. 


(End of Story 1) 


Story 1: Mouse and two Monks,—Frame Story: Dove, Crow, &e. 347 


(166) (And) hearing this Sluggish spoke encouragingly to 
him: ‘“ My friend, be not perturbed because you have left your 
own country. (You are wise; why let your mind be troubled? 
Moreover :) | 

People may remain fools even after studying the books of 
learning. But the truly wise man is he who acts [according to 
what he has learned]. For a sick man may ponder the name 
of a healing remedy as much as he likes; but does that alone 
make him well? 54. 

If a man is afraid to be resolute, for him the acquisition of 
knowledge has not the least effect. For tho a blind man may hold 
a lamp in the palm of his hand, does it do him any good? 55. 

In the revolutions of fortune men who have given [alms] 
become beggars; men that have slain are slain themselves; and 
men that have tormented others are tormented. 56. 

(167) (So, my friend, live your life here in [this] more 
desirable estate.) And (moreover) have no such thots as this: 

Teeth, hair, nails, and men are of no account when removed 
from their native places. A wise man should know this and 
not abandon his native place. 57. 

(168) (Now) such is the practice of base men. (For to the noble 
there is no difference between a native and a foreign land.) Since: 

What can be called the native land, or what a foreign country, 
for a man who is steadfast and wise? Whatsoever land he lingers 
in, even that he makes his own by the power of his arm. 
Whatever forest a lion penetrates with the furious blows of his 
teeth, claws, and tail—even there he slakes his thirst on the 
blood of the noble elephants he slays. 58. 

(169) Accordingly, my friend, you should always be strenuous, 
knowing that wealth and enjoyments never depart from the 
strenuous. (And again:) 

Like frogs to a pond, like fish to a full lake, so to the 
strenuous man come of themselves both helpers and money. 959. 

Be a man energetic, prompt to act, skillful in performance, 
free from vices, bold, grateful for favors, firm in friendship,— 
then Fortune herself seeks him out to dwell with him. 60. 

Be a man irresolute, slothful, relying on fate, and without 
manly courage,—then Fortune is unwilling to embrace him, 
as a charming woman her aged spouse. 61. 


348 Book II: Winning of Friends 


(If capable of energetic action, a man can acquire wealth in 
this world, even tho he be foolish. No respect is paid to a man 
whose energy fails him, even if he have a mind like Brhaspati’s.” 
62.) 

(170) Tho you have lost your riches, Sir, you are gifted 
with insight and energy (and power; so that you are not to 
be compared with an ordinary mortal). How then? 

Even without riches a resolute man attains a place of high 
honor and distinction, whereas a weakling, tho surrounded with 
riches, falls to a place of contempt. A dog may put on a golden 
collar, but he does not thereby attain the majesty of a lion; 
for that is born of native endowment and increases thru the 
acquisition of a mass of noble qualities. 63. 

He who abounds in valor and resolution, and has energy 
and power as well, and who thinks always of the ocean as no 
more than a tiny puddle and the prince of mountains [Himalaya] 
as no more than the peak of an anthill,—to him Fortune comes 
willingly, but not to the faint-hearted. 64. 

Meru’s peak is not too high, nor hell too deep, nor the vast 
ocean too boundless, for men who are seconded by firm re- 
solve. 65. 

Why exult in the thot that you have wealth, or why be cast 
down at the loss thereof? The ups and downs of men are like 
a [bouncing] ball that is struck with the hand. 66. 

(171) (Now youth and wealth are quite as fleeting as bubbles 
in the water. Since:) | 

The shadow of a cloud, the friendship of a scoundrel, young 
corn, and maidens, can be enjoyed but for a brief space; and 
so with youth and wealth. 67, | 

(172) So, friend (Goldy), you should realize this and not be 
distrest, even tho robbed of your wealth. (And it is said:) 

What is not to be, that will not be; what is to be, that 
cannot be otherwise. This antidote that destroys the poison of 
eare—why not drink it? 68. 

(173) Therefore dwell in freedom from all care for your 
livelihood. 

He who made swans white, parrots yellow, and peacocks 
varicolored—he will provide for your life. 69. 


 Preceptor of the gods and god of wisdom. 


Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer d49 


A man should never mourn for his riches when he has fallen 
on adversity; nor yet should he give vent to rejoicing when 
he has come upon good fortune. For the results that develop 
in accordance with men’s past deeds inevitably come to them, 
be they good or bad. 70. 

Every day the pure in heart should perform at least a small 
pious act,—a religious observance, vow, or fast. For death is 
ever ready to fall upon the lives of creatures, however they 
may strive [to avoid it]. 71. 

There is no other treasure like charity; what happiness is 
like contentment? Where is an adornment like good character? 
And there is no profit on earth like health. 72. 

(174) In short (then), this dwelling is your own; (be of good 
cheer and unafraid, and) spend your time (here) right with me in 
loving affection.” (175) And when Lightwing heard the words 
of Sluggish, so full of the essence of all wisdom, his face 
beamed with satisfaction and he said: (176) “Friend Sluggish, 
you are rightly credited with the qualities on which dependants 
rely. For by this protection which you have afforded Goldy 
you have given the greatest satisfaction to my heart. (What 
wonder is there in this? It is said:) 

When dear friends are joined with dear friends and their 
joy and delight are mutual, it is they who drink the cream of 
happiness; it is they who really live, and they who are truly 
noble. 73. 

Tho their station be exalted, yet are they poor, and their 
labors are vain, those who make [their own] lives their sole object, 
whose hearts are so seduced by cupidity that they fail to make 
their fortunes, freely offered, the adornment of their friends. 74. 

It is only the noble who are ever able to rescue the noble 
from distress. It is only elephants that can be harnest to the 
task of pulling out elephants that are sunk in a bog. 75. 

Give protection always to the righteous, even at the risk of 
your life. For only in doing good to others do the fortunate find 
profit in bodily existence. 76. 

Among all men on earth he alone is praiseworthy, and he 
only has completed the whole duty of righteous men, from 
whom neither beggars nor suppliants depart disappointed, failing 
of their desires.” 77. 


300 Book IL: Winning of Friends 


(177) Now while they were conversing thus a deer named 
Dapple-body, frightened by hunters and thirsty, came to that 
(large) pool. (178) (And) when they saw him coming their 
hearts were greatly alarmed, and they started to run away. 
Panting for a drink, the deer came swiftly down into the water; 
and hearing the splash of it, (179) Sluggish dived (hastily from 
the bank) into the water. (180) Goldy too (was frightened and) 
ran into a hole (in a tree-stump). (181) And Lightwing (flew 
up to find out what it meant, and) alighted on a (tall) tree. 
(182) But Dapple-body stopt still on the very edge of the pond, 
in fear for his life. (183) Then Lightwing flew up in the air 
and lookt over the ground all around for the distance of a 
league, and alighted on the tree (again), (184) and said to 
Sluggish: ‘Come back, come back, there is no danger to you 
from any quarter. (I have lookt around, and there is nothing 
but a grass-eating deer that has come to the pond to get a 
drink.) ” (185) At these words (the prudent Sluggish came out 
again, and) all three of them (, being reassured,) teturned to 
the same spot. (186) Then Sluggish said (hospitably) to the 
deer: ‘‘ Friend, drink (and bathe in) the water to your heart’s 
content. And when you are refresht, come back here.” (187) 
(When he heard these words) Dapple-body reflected: ‘‘ There 
is no danger at all to me from these creatures, because a 
tortoise, as everyone knows, can do nothing out of the water, 
while the mouse and the crow eat only dead flesh, and only 
tiny bodies at that. So I will go with them.” (188) With these 
thots he joined them. (And) Sluggish said to Dapple-body, after 
he had welcomed him and otherwise treated him civilly: ‘ May 
good luck be yours, sir. (Tell us,) how did you come to this 
hidden place in the woods? ” (189) (To which) the other replied: 
‘““T am tired of the grievous roaming life I have been leading. 
(Horsemen, dogs, and) hunters headed me off from this way 
and that, and I was frightened, and (ran as fast as I could 
and outstript them all and) came hither (looking for a drink), 
Now I should like to make friends with you.” (190) (When) 
Sluggish (heard this he) said: ‘‘ My friend, be not afraid. .This 
house is your own. Dwell here to your heart’s content, free 
from annoyance,” (191) Thenceforth they all spent the time in 
loving converse with each other, each doing as he listed; every 


Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer 351 


day (at noon-time), after they had eaten, they would meet in 
the shade of a large tree and would engage in earnest discussion 
of various learned topics. (192) But one day Dapple-body failed 
to arrive at the customary hour. (193) (And when they did 
not see him,) their hearts were troubled (by an evil omen which 
just then occurred,) and they suspected that some accident had 
happened to him, and they could not feel easy. (194) Then 
Sluggish said to Lightwing: “(You are an expert in this business, 
because your powers are suited to it. So) fly up and find out 
what has happened to Dapple-body.” (195) At these words 
Lightwing flew up; and before he had gone far he saw Dapple- 
body at a place that led down to water, bound by a strong 
leather strap attacht to a stake. (196) And (coming up). he 
said to him (sadly): ‘(My friend,) how comes it that you 
have fallen into such a plight?” (197) Dapple-body said: “ (My 
friend,) this is no time for reproaches; (it is clear that this 
threatens my death. So do not delay; because [while] you are 
a capable person, sir, you are not skilled at cutting thongs.) 
So go quickly and bring Goldy, and he will be able to cut 
this thong (with ease).” (198) Lightwing (, saying ‘So be it,’’) 
went back to Sluggish and Goldy, and told them of Dapple- 
body’s captivity, (199) (and urged [Goldy] to loose Dapple-body’s 
thong,) (200) and (right) speedily brought Goldy there. (201) 
(When he saw Dapple-body in such a state,) Goldy (was greatly 
distrest and) said to him: “Comrade, you have the eye of 
wisdom; how did you get into this plight?” (202) Said he: 
‘Comrade, why do you ask that? (You know that) fate is all- 
powerful. And it is said: 

What can even a man of shining wisdom do in the face of 
that great ocean of calamities, Death [Fate]? Who can hold 
in check Him who, unseen, can fall upon each and every man, 
either by night or in broad day? 78. (And again:) 

(Even the minds of the wise go bowed down [like cripples], 
when held captive by Death’s thongs and when their judgment 
is smitten by Fate. 719.) 

(203) So (my noble friend, since you know the pranks that 
Fate plays, do you quickly) cut this thong, before the (cruel). 
hunter comes.” (204) (Thus addrest) Goldy said: ‘ (Friend, do 
not fear,) while I am at your side there is no danger from 


352 Book IL: Winning of Friends 


the hunter. (But I am asking because I am curious to know 
how you were trickt, since you are always wary in your 
actions.) ’’ (205) Said he: “(If you are determined to hear it, 
then hear how) altho I have already known (the bitterness of) 
captivity, by the power of Fate I am. (now) taken captive 
(again).” (206) Said the other: ‘“ (Tell me,) how (now) did you 
suffer captivity before? ” Dapple-body said: 


STORY 4: DEER’S FORMER CAPTIVITY 


(207) Once upon.a time I was a six-months-old foal. (208) 
(And I ran in front of all the rest, and easily going a long 
distance [ahead] I would act as guard to the herd. Now we 
have two kinds of gaits, the upright [hurdling], and the straight- 
away [running]. Of these I was acquainted with the straight- 
away, but not with the upright gait.) (209) Now once upon a 
time (as I ran along, | lost sight of the herd of deer. My heart 
was terrified, and I gazed about in all directions to see where 
they had gone, and perceived them some distance ahead. For) 
they (, employing the upright gait,) had all leapt over a snare 
and gone on ahead (, and were waiting and looking for me). 
(210) And J (rusht forward employing the straight-away gait,) 
because I did not know how to go (the upright gait, and was 
entangled in the net. Thereupon I) was caught by the hunter 
when he came up. (211) (And) he took me and brought me 
to the king’s son (for him to play with). (212) But (the king’s 
son was greatly delighted at seeing me, and gave a reward to 
the hunter. And) he petted and tended me with dainty food 
such as I liked, and with other attentions—rubbing me with 
unguents, bathing and feeding me, and providing me with per- 
fumes and ointments. And the women of the harem and the 
princes, finding me very interesting, (past me around from one 
person to another and) annoyed me (greatly by pulling at my 
neck and eyes, hands, feet, and ears, and by the like attentions). 
(213) Now once upon a time, (during the rainy season,) when 
I was (right) under the prince’s bed, the longings of my heart 
were stirred by the sound of the thunder of the clouds (and 
the sight of the lightning), so that (my thots went back to my 
own herd and) I spoke (as follows): 


Story 4: Deer’s former Captivity.—Frame Story: Dove, Crow, &c. 353 


‘‘When shall it be my lot to follow behind the herd of deer 
as it runs [hither and yon], driven about by the wind and 
rain?” 80. 

(214) Thereupon the prince (,who was alone,) was astonisht 
and spoke (as follows): “(I am all alone,) who was it that 
spoke these words (here)? ”’ (215) (His heart was greatly troubled, 
and) he lookt all around, and notist me. (216) (And) when he 
saw me [he thot]: “It was no human being who said this, but 
a deer. Therefore this is a portent (and I am surely undone).” 
(217) So thinking he became greatly agitated. (His speech 
faltered, and with difficulty he ran out of the house, and) he 
fell seriously ill (, as if possest of a mighty demon). (218) (Then 
in the morning, being stricken with a fever,) he addrest himself 
to all the physicians and devil-doctors, stirring their cupidity 
(with [a promise of] much money): (219) (‘‘ Whoever can cure 
this my disease, to him I will give no mean fee.” But I was) 
at this time (being beaten by the thotless crowd with blows 
of sticks, bricks, and clubs, when) a certain (saintly man came 
to my rescue, as my life was not yet spent, and said: “ Why 
are you killing this [poor] beast?” And this) noble man, who 
knew the meaning of all signs, said to the king’s son: (220) 
“(Sir,) all the tribes of animals can speak, tho you may not 
know it—but not in the presence of men; he gave expression 
to his heart’s fancies (in this way) only because he did not see 
you. (His longings were stirred by the rainy season, and his 
thots turned to his herd, and so he spoke as he did: ‘ When 
shall it be my lot’ &c.) So there is no ground for your illness, 
Sir (; it is unreasonable).” (221) (And) when the king’s son 
heard this, his (feverish) disease left him (and he became whole 
as before). (And) he led me away and (anointed me and had 
my body washt with plenty of water and set men to watch 
over me and) turned me loose in that same forest. (222) (And 
the men did just as he told them.) Thus, tho I suffered captivity 
before, I have now been captured (again) by the power of Fate. 


(End of Story 4) 


(223) Now while they were conversing thus, Sluggish, his 
heart carried away by love for his friends, (followed their 


track, crushing down the reeds, thorns, and kuéa-grass as he 
Edgerton, Paiicatantra. II. 23 


304 Book II: Winning of Friends 


went, and very slowly) came up to the place where they were. 
(224) (And) when they saw him (their hearts were profoundly 
alarmed, and) Goldy said (to him): (225) ‘“‘ Friend, you have 
done ill in (leaving your stronghold and) coming. (You cannot 
protect yourself from the hunter.) (226) (We, to be sure, can 
get away from him. For) if the (villain of a) hunter approaches, 
Dapple-body, if his thong is cut, will (take to his heels and) 
run away. Lightwing too will fly up in a tree, and I (being 
small of body) shall run into a hole. But what can you do if 
you find yourself within his reach, Sir? ” (227) Sluggish replied: 
“ (Friend, say not so!) 

Who could find endurable separation from his beloved and 
loss of his riches, were it not for association with his friends, 
which is like a mighty healing herb? 81. 

(The days, tho rarely met with, that are spent in association 
with cultured and beloved [friends], are like journey-money for 
one who has nothing left but the wilderness of life [to travel 
thru]. 82.) 

By telling one’s sorrow to a devoted friend, to a virtuous 
wife, and to a sympathetic lord, the heart seems to find rest. 
83. (So, my friend:) 

A man’s gaze seems to roam about full of longing, and his 
distrest mind strays to unknown regions, when he is sundered 
from a devotedly loving and virtuous friend.” 84. 

(228) (Even) while he was speaking these words, that hunter 
arrived. (229) As soon as he saw him, Goldy, having cut the 
thong, ran into a hole (as he had said he would). And Light- 
wing flew up (into the air) and was gone, while Dapple-body, 
too, ran swiftly away. (230) But the hunter, supposing that 
the thong had been cut by the deer, thot it a remarkable case 
of magic (, and said: “It must have taken Fate’s help for a 
deer to cut a thong!”’). (231) (Then) seeing Sluggish crawling 
very slowly along the dry ground, he was somewhat comforted 
and said eagerly: ‘‘ Even if I have been robbed of the deer 
(thru its cutting the thong) with Fate’s help, still Fate has 
provided (me with) a tortoise.” (232) With these thots he (took 
some kusa-grass, cutting it with a knife, and made a strong 
rope, and) drew up the tortoise’s feet and bound him securely 
and hung him on his bow, and set out to return by the same 


Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer 30D 


way he had come. (233) Thereupon the deer, the mouse, and 
the crow, as they saw him carried off, ran after him (crying) 
in the greatest distress. Goldy said: 

“Before I get to the end of one sorrow, as to the shore 
of an ocean, behold, another has come upon me! In hard times 
misfortunes come thick and fast. 85. 

As long as a man has not stumbled, so long he proceeds 
comfortably on an even path. But once let him stumble never 
so little, and there are stumbling-blocks at every step. 86. 
(Woe is me!) 

No sooner does Fate put an end to wealth, than the shade 
ealled a friend, which is a refreshment for one cee from 
the journey, is also ruined. 87. 

(234) As for another friend—no, one like Siteaiel could not 
be found! (Life itself depends on friends, they say.) 

Only by rare fortune can one acquire a friend who is a 
friend by his very nature, whose spontaneous friendship does 
not perish even in adversity. 88. 

Men do not derive so much refreshment from mother, wife, 
brother, or son, as from a devoted friend. 89. 

The wise declare that a friend increases life in this world. 
It is in this world that a friend brings happiness; a friend does 
not pertain to the world beyond. 90. 

(235) Now why does Fate thus rain its blows so unceasingly 
upon me? (For) first, you know, I lost my money; because of 
my poverty I suffered the contempt of my followers; from 
despair begotten of that came exile from my native land and 
separation from a (beloved) friend; behold, this is my chain 
of misfortunes. Moreover: 

The varying conditions of life, brought about by the con- 
tinuous train of men’s deeds, and successively good or bad at 
different times, appear, to be sure, in this [single] life, yet 
they seem to me as shifting as different reincarnations. 91. 

The body embodies disaster; fortune plays the tune of mis- 
fortunes; associations have their dissociations '°; everything that 
is born dies. 92. 


13 The first three sentences of this stanza contain word-plays, which the 


translation attempts to imitate. 
23% 


356 Book II: Winning of Friends 


What man is not toucht by calamities when his time comes? 
Or who that lives in this world is unceasingly happy? Fortune 
and misfortune come in natural revolution, like the circle of 
the constellations revolving in the sky. 93. 

Blows rain incessantly on a crippled man; when food is all 
gone the fire of the belly rages. Enmities spring up in times 
of disaster; in hard times misfortunes come thick and fast. 94. 

(236) Alas now, I am smitten with separation from my friend; 
what use is there in (trying to forget this, even with the aid 
of) my own people? And it is said: 

Who created this two-syllabled jewel called ‘ comrade,’ which 
saves from grief, discontent, and danger, and is a vessel of 
love and trust? ”’ 95. 

(237) After many such lamentations Goldy said to Dapple- 
body and Lightwing: ‘ After all, what is the use of vain 
lamenting? Let us devise a means of freeing Sluggish before 
he is taken out of our range (of vision).’’ They both said: 
“Let us do so.” Said he: (238) ‘Let Dapple-body go in 
front of that hunter and fall down (in a place that is far away 
from him) near the water and make himself appear (as if) 
dead. (239) And as for Lightwing here, let him settle upon 
his body, (fixing his feet between his branching antlers,) and 
peck at him with his beak and make it appear that he is 
picking out his eyes. (240) But that (fool of a) hunter (in his 
greediness) will be sure to think ‘This deer is dead,’ and will 
throw away the tortoise and run quickly to get the deer. 
(241) (Thereupon,) as soon as he is gone, I (for my part) will 
cut Sluggish’s bonds. And then, when his bonds are cut, he 
will quickly get into the lake. (242) (But further,) when that 
wretch of a hunter gets near, then you must do your utmost 
to flee from him.” (243) This plan was (precisely) carried out 
(by Dapple-body and Lightwing). And when the hunter saw 
on the shore the apparently dead deer being eaten by the 
crow, he was delighted, (and threw the tortoise down on the 
ground) and ran up to the deer. (244) Thereupon Goldy cut 
Sluggish’s bonds in pieces, and the tortoise (speedily left that 
place and) entered the water. (245) And the deer, seeing that 
the hunter was near by, got up and disappeared in a twinkling, 

4 The zodiac. 


Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer 307 


along with the crow. (246) Then the hunter (thot this was a 
piece of jugglery, and, wondering what it could mean, turned 
back. But) when he came to where the tortoise had been, 
(then he) saw the (binding) cord (, which was as thick as a 
finger,) cut (in pieces), and the tortoise himself vanisht like a 
magician. So he began to have doubts of his own body. And 
greatly perturbed at heart he rusht out of that wood with 
hurried footsteps, (ever looking around in all directions,) and 
returned dejectedly to his own house. (247) Then all those 
four, free from troubles (and whole in body), came together 
again and went to their own place, and spent their time [thence- 
forth] in happiness (, dwelling in loving converse with one 
another). (Hence:) 

When even beasts can form such an alliance as this, ce- 
lebrated thruout the world, what wonder if the like is found 
among men, who are endowed with intelligence? 96. 


Here ends the Second Book, called the Winning of Friends. 


BOOK III 


WAR AND PEACE, OR, THE CROWS 
AND THE OWLS 


(1) Now here begins this, the third book, called (the Crows 
and the Owls, and dealing with) War and Peace; of which 
this is the opening stanza: 

Put no trust in one whom you have formerly injured, nor 
in an enemy that has turned into a friend. Behold how the 
nest full of owls was burned with fire brought by the crows. 1. 

(2) The king’s sons said: ‘“‘(And) how was that?” Visnusar- 
man said: 

(3) Once upon a time in a certain forest-region there was 
a large banyan-tree, which seemed to offer a welcome to 
travelers with the dense shade of its many leaves and bushy 
trunks. (4) There dwelt a crow-king named Cloud-color, with 
a following of a thousand crows. (5) (Not far from) there (also) 
dwelt an owl-king named Foe-crusher, with a following of a 
thousand owls. (6) (And) once he, moved by hatred due to (the 
natural) enmity [of crows and owls], (got knowledge of the 
crow-fortress from his owls, and) came by night with a 
(large) crowd of owls and fell upon this [ecrow-king] (with a 
violence like the power of Death). And he inflicted a terrible 
slaughter upon the crows, and departed. (7) And on the morning 
of the next day Cloud-color found those that had escaped the 
slaughter, many of them with broken beaks, wings, and legs; 
and (after ordering an inspection of the whole camp and re- 
ceiving a report of it,) he opened a council-meeting of his 
ministers with these words: (8) ‘ You see this great slaughter 
which has been wrought upon us by our enemy Foe-crusher. 
He has found the way to our stronghold and will surely find 
opportunity to come again tonight! to make an end of us. So 


' Or possibly, with a variant reading, “ by night.” 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls 309 


let us lay plans without delay to keep him out.’ With these 
words they withdrew to a private place. (9) Now he had five 
ministers who had inherited the office by (line of) succession; 
(their names were) Up-flier, Along-flier, Back-flier, Forth-flier, 
and Long-lived. (He began to question them one by one.) (10) 
And first among them he askt Up-flier: ‘(Sir,) under these 
circumstances what do you think we should do (next)?” (11) 
He replied: “(Do I know anything of special value?) Sire, 
1 can only say what is said in the books of learning. (But) 
when one is attackt by a stronger power, there is nothing to 
do but submit to him or leave the country.” (12) Hearing this 
he said to Along-flier: ‘‘ (Sir,) what is your opinion?” Said he: 
(13) “ (Sire,) as for what he has said, (that one who is attackt 
by a stronger power must leave the country,)—now, one ought 
not to leave his stronghold of a sudden and without good cause. 
Therefore, under these conditions we ought to spend the time 
pendulum-fashion?; when danger threatens, we will withdraw, 
and when it is safe, we will stay right in our stronghold.” 
(14) (Then) when he had noted his advice (also) he askt 
Forth-flier: ‘‘ What is your opinion in this matter?’ He replied: 
(15) “(O king,) this business of constantly going back and 
forth would be fatal. We should have to transport back and 
forth the poor, the blind, the cripples, the deformed, those with 
withered arms, the lame, the sick, and all our baggage; and 
this alone would be enuf to ruin us. Wherefore, under these 
conditions peace is the only proper course for us. (Because:) 

If a weak king is attackt by a powerful king with a mighty 
host, let him hasten to make peace, for the welfare of his 
treasury, his army, and himself. 2. 

(16) (So,) having made submission to them, we shall stay 
here (in peace and undisturbed).” (17) When he had noted 
his advice (also), he askt Back-flier: “ (Sir, under these con- 
ditions) what do you consider timely (for us)?’’ He replied: 
(18) “ Better to dwell in the forest and use water defiled by the 
cuds chewed by deer, than to live in wretched dependence on an 
enemy, for one who has tasted the sweets of lordship. Moreover: 

A man of power should not bow before one who is not his 
equal; to bow before one who is not an equal is a great evil. 


2 Literally, “like a swing.” 


360 Book III: War and Peace 


This too ready submission is contemptible for men who are 
rich in prowess. 3. (And again:) 

Just as in the case of sticks, a man’s shadow is lengthened 
when he bends, and [yet} if he bend too much, it is completely 
destroyed; hence one should bend, but not bend overmuch, 4. 

(19) And we have not so much as a common ground of 
meeting with them. Without a common ground of meeting how 
ean we make peace? Therefore war with them is by all means 
the best thing for us.” (20) Then when Cloud-color had taken 
note of the opinions of all four (of these one by one), he said 
to Long-lived: ‘ Father, you are our (hereditary) minister of 
long[est] standing (and you are ever devoted to our welfare). 
What do you think timely now (that things are as they are)? 
(And whatever you say I know will be best for us.)” (21) 
(At these words) Long-lived said: “Sire, what is there (that 
I might say) that has not been said by these? (For in regard 
to war and peace, whether war or peace be proper in this 
case, both points of view have been already exprest.) However, 
(in regard to what Back-flier said, that advice would be the 
ruin of our side. Sir,) how could there be an equal fight 
between them and us? It is clear that the fight would be un- 
equal for us. They are in all respects [more] powerful. There- 
fore it is not wise for us to fight with them. And so: 

Whosoever blindly rushes into action without taking account 
of his own strength and weakness and of his enemy’s too, he 
1s courting disaster. 5. 

One should have respect for enemies, even those of little 
weight. For fruitless are the undertakings of those who act 
otherwise. 6. 

One should be watchful and distrustful of an enemy that is 
patient and wise, that attacks at the right season and that 
knows the strong and the weak points of himself and _ his 
adversary. 7. 

To whomsoever Fortune yields herself, won by sound [politi- 
cal] methods, with him surely she abides undisturbed, since 
she is not dishonored by her marriage [to him]. 8. 

An exalted foe, even at a distance, assuredly destroys the 
majesty [of a king]; what can a mean-spirited one accomplish 
even tho he be armed and close at hand? 9. 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls 561 


Do not despise even one who is cowed, who has been sorely 
handled, who is in flight or has been deserted, nor even one 
who is disarmed or alone. Thus say those who are skilled in 
polity. 10. 

(The man whose enemy is conquered without trouble is the 
[true] victor. Whosoever conquers only after fighting a doubtful 
battle that might have been won by either side, he is really 
defeated. 11.) 

Success [of two kinds] is known: by guile, and by mutual 
slaughter. Success gained without strategy means one’s own 
death.? Think, which of the two [is preferable]? 12. 

For those who are haughty, malicious, greedy, lustful, false, 
puft up with arrogance, and easily angered, the methods of 
government are hard to grasp. 13. 

But the same are maintained only by those who do not 
overstep the proper bounds, who are well-instructed,  self- 
controlled, all-patient, skilled in the [political] ways and means, 
and not stupid. 14. 

(22) So warfare is by no means desirable; because feud with 
a superior, like fighting on foot with an elephant, leads to 
utter ruin.” (23) Cloud-color said: ‘“ (Father, say,) what is the 
final outcome?” He replied: ‘ (Sir,) consider this. (It is said:) 

Surely Fortune, which cannot be won even at the price of 
sacrificing one’s life, runs without even a summons into the 
house of those who know good counsel. 15. 

Whoever does not ask, one after the other, [the advice of] 
well-wishing friends who know the books of learning, in regard 
to various kinds of action, [comes to grief].4 16. 

He who takes consideration of place, forces, duty, political 
methods, and [his own] time of life, before he proceeds to 
action,—like rivers to the abundant ocean, good fortune streams 
in to that excellent man. 17. 

Counsellors must be heroes proved spotless by all trials; 
they must be wise and far-seeing; for kingship depends on 
good counsellors. 18. 

An ignorant man never becomes a vessel of good fortune, 
no, not tho he have drunk the glory of his foes in battle,— 


3 Or, “implies its own end,” 7. e. does not continue. 
4 This stanza is fragmentary in the text; the latter half is missing. 


362 Book III: War and Peace 


battle wherein flew countless sparks of fire engendered by the 
clashing of elephants’ tusks. 19. 

(24) Therefore a following of excellent counsellors is by all 
means necessary for the complete success of him who desires 
to conquer. And it is said: 

Fortune does not regard descent from an old family line 
as a mark of excellence, nor handsome appearance, nor yet 
acquisition [of knowledge®]. Fickle tho she is, she cleaves to 
the man who is brave and attended by good counsellors, and 
to him alone. 20. 

Is there any doubt of the success of him who makes the [six] 
forms of policy® his support? Let him commit himself to the 
practices of the noble, and prosperity will not be hard to gain. 21. 

Do not proud men rush unhesitatingly to destruction for the 
sake of glory? And they will have nothing of a very eternity 
of life, if it be attended by disgrace. 22. 

Lift up your right foot [and step forth] unto victory! Why 
delay? For our teachers say that procrastination is the root 
of disasters. 23. 

What profit is there in these vain parrot-chatterings, that 
are rejected as soon as heard’? [If] you are wise—abandon 
silence and speak forth what the time demands. 24. 

For the wise declare that victory has its root in good counsel. 
But the soul and the understanding are the abiding-place of 
good counsel. 25. 

But it is well known that there are just six doors to counsel 
[thru which it may be betrayed], O king. [Altho] you know 
them already, Sir, I will name them, O you of glorious name! 26. 

One’s self; a minister, and a messenger; a secret agent; the 
process of the three daily ablutions; and the expressions [of the 
face and gestures] they name as the sixth. Such is the accepted 
Opinion concerning counsel, 27, 

Hear however the fruit of counsel that is not communicated. 
One [thereby] gains complete worldly profit, without loss in 
religion or love.® 28. 


> Or, perhaps, “ [of property].” 

6 For these see Book I, $ 188 (page 293). 

7 Or possibly, ‘‘that are rejected by inspired authority.” 

* On these three objects of human desire compare page 272, note 4. 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls 363 


Now the threefold advantage of counsellors is this: approval 
of decisions, removal of doubt, and his ever-present wis- 
dom.’ 29. 

(25) (Therefore an effort must be made to keep every counsel 
confidential.1° Since :) 

Counsel falsely applied, like a ghoul improperly invoked," 
is sure to destroy him who uses it before it can be stopt. 30. 

Division of counsel among ministers leads to naught but 
destruction for one’s own party and the exaltation of the enemy; 
it can never be profitable. 31. 

He who apportions properly his income and outlay, whose 
agents are secret and whose counsel is private, and who speaks 
not unkindly to his ministers—he shall rule the earth to the 
edge of the ocean. 32. 

(26) Therefore I say again: War is not desirable. But peace 
also is an impossible thing for us, since we have a natural 
lasting feud [with the owls]. (27) Now then if you really want 
my advice, send away these [ministers] that are clever in talk 
[alone], that live by nothing but a mere pretense of ministry. 
When matters of pressing moment are on foot, secret counsel 
does not bear fruit if heard by six ears.” (28) And when this 
had been done, Cloud-color said: “ Father, (I am young and 
inexperienst; I will do just as you say, for all of this is 
dependent on you.) You are one whose advice is profitable; 
you have learning and the wisdom of experience, and you are 
my well-wisher by inheritance. (But tell me something that 
I am curious to know:) How (pray) did our feud with the 
owls begin?” (29) He replied: “(Sir,) by a mistake of speech. 

For after long grazing on grass without interruption in the 
summer-time, the foolish ass that was covered with a panther’s 
skin was killed because of the mistake of speech.” 33. 

(30) Said the other: ‘‘And how was that?” Long-lived said: 


® Hertel, “constant knowledge of him [the king].” This seems hardly to 
give sense, and I prefer to understand ¢asya as possessive and referring to 
the minister, in spite of a certain looseness or harshness in the change from 
plural to singular (which I keep in the translation). 

10 Text here corrupt and uncertain. 

11 J differ from Hertel in understanding durista[h], adj., rather than duriste, 
noun; “badly invoked” rather than “evil magic.” The word translated 
““ehoul” is vetala, the modern Hindi daital. ‘ 


364 ‘Book III: War and Peace 


STORY 1: ASS IN PANTHER’S SKIN 


(31) A certain washerman had an ass who was worn out with 
the vexation of exceeding great burdens (in carrying clothes). 
(32) And the washerman, thinking to revive him, covered him 
with a panther’s skin and turned him loose by night in grain 
that belonged to others. (83) And he ate the grain as much as 
he pleased, and no one (approacht him or) drove him away 
(from the grain), because they thot him a panther. (384) Now 
(once upon atime) a certain (husbandman, a) watchman of the 
grain, saw him, and thot: ‘‘(That is) a panther! (I am lost!)”’ 
And he (bent over and) wrapt his body in his (gray) cloak, 
and, with uplifted bow in his hand, began to slink away (very 
cautiously). (385) And seeing him (from a distance) the ass, whose 
frame had grown fat (and who had recovered his strength), 
took him for a she-ass; and (since his life was doomed to end) 
he (put on full speed and) started in pursuit. (But the man ran 
faster than ever. And the ass thot: ‘‘Perhaps she may mistake 
me for what I am not, because she sees my body covered with 
the panther’s skin. So I will take on my true nature for her 
and charm her heart with a bray.” So thinking) he began to 
bray. (86) (And) hearing this the watchman of the grain knew 
(by the sound) that it was an ass, and (turned around and) 
killed him with an arrow. 


(End of Story 1) 


(37) Therefore I say: ‘‘For after long grazing” &c. (38) ‘‘Thus 
our feud with the owls (also) began in a mistake of speech.” 
(Cloud-color said: “ How was that?” He told the story:) 


STORY 2: BIRDS ELECT KING 


(39) Once upon a time when they had no king all the birds 
assembled and considered whom they should consecrate king 
of the birds. And they decided that they would install the owl 
as king. (40) And they collected all the things (required) for 
the coronation (according to prescribed rites), and set about 
the ceremony of the coronation with the parasol, chowrie, (fans, 
throne, royal seat, linen garments, [sacred vessels in the form of] 
mystic diagrams,) and the other [emblems of royalty]. (41) At 


Story 1.—Frame Story.—Story 2.—Story 3 365 


this point a crow flew thru the air and alighted. But when they 
saw him they halted the coronation [saying]: ‘“ He also must 
without fail have a part in the assembly (; because this affair 
of royalty is of great importance for the entire world).’”’ And 
when he arrived they askt him (: ‘‘Sir, do you also agree to 
this, that the owl shall be king ?’’). (42) (Then) he said: ‘‘ Why, 
are all the other birds annihilated, the swans, ducks, ruddy 
geese; curlews, peacocks, cuckoos, pigeons, pheasants and the 
rest, that this owl with his ungracious appearance is made king? 
Moreover: 

Crooked-nosed, squint-eyed, savage and unfriendly in look; 
when he is not angry his face is evil; what, pray, will he do 
when he is angry? 34. 

Naturally savage and very cruel, mean and unpleasant in 
speech: if you crown this owl king, how can you hope for 
protection? 35. 

(43) He inflames every thing he looks at,}? and cannot be 
used [even] in a bluff. And it is said: 

Even in a bluff may lie success, if a king is without power. 
By the bluff of the moon?® the hares dwell in peace.” 36. 

(44) The birds said: ‘‘(And) how was that?” The crow said: 


STORY 3: ELEPHANT, HARES AND MOON 


(45) Once upon a time there was a drought for twelve years. 
(46) (And) by reason of this the pools, ponds, tanks, and lakes 
were dried up, and all the animals (were tormented with 
thirst and) fell into dire distress, but especially the elephants. 
(47) Now the king of the elephants, whose name was Four- 
tusks, was appealed to by the other elephants: (48) ‘‘Sire, the 
young elephants are tormented with thirst; some of them are 
in a dying condition (and others are dead). So let some plan 
be devised for relieving our thirst.” (49) Then the king of the 
herd sent swift runners in (all) eight directions to search for 
water. (50) And one of them returned and said: ‘“ (Sire,) not 
far away there is a lake named Moonlake, full of (pure) water 

22 Literally, ‘he makes an inflammation (more exactly, a digdaha, preter- 
natural redness of the horizon) of what is seen [by him].” Hertel completely 


misunderstands this sentence and the following stanza. 
13 I. e., by using the moon in a bluff. 


366 Book UI: War and Peace 


and as large as a quarter of the sky.” (51) And (accordingly) 
the elephant-king took all of them in (great haste and) joy and 
arrived at the lake. (52) And as they went down to the bank 
of the lake (which was difficult of access on all sides), they 
crusht the heads and necks of many hares which had been 
living on this bank. (53) Now when this elephant-herd, after 
drinking and bathing, had departed, (54) the hares that were 
left alive began to take counsel. Then the hare-king, whose 
name was Spike-snout, said: ‘What is now to be done? (Our 
tribe is ruined.) They have found the way and will surely come 
here again. Therefore (before they get here) let us contrive some 
plan.”” (55) Then a hare named Victory, who had had much 
experience, said to them: ‘This can be done; I promise you 
that they shall not come here again. However, be so gracious 
as to furnish me merely with a witness to my actions.” (56) 
Hearing this Spike-snout said (joyfully): ‘‘I am very sure of 
it, my dear sir! Since: 

When Victory is sent forth, who knows the essence of the 
teachings of the books on political science, and who knows how 
to distinguish [right and wrong] places and times [for actions], 
then will suecess be complete. 37. 

Whosoever speaks what is salutary, speaks in moderation, 
speaks in Sanskrit,?* and speaks not overmuch, and whosoever 
speaks only after considering the facts, his speech, hae is 
effective in all undertakings. 38. 

(57) The elephants will learn of my triple power! even hp 
I remain far away, when they perceive the greatness of your 
wit. For: 

By beholding a messenger or a letter from a king whom I have 
not seen, I can tell whether that king is wise or unwise. 39. 

For a messenger can cause union, and can also sunder those 
that are united. A messenger performs the work by which men 
prosper. 40. 

(58) And if you go it is the same as if I myself went. Because: 

You may speak what is appropriate and fitting, and what you 
consider good; you may say what you will; all of it shall be 
the same as my own word. 41. 


44 The literary and learned language, as distinguisht from popular dialects. 
15 See page 298, note 23. 


Story 3: Elephant, Hares and Moon 367 


(This is the whole duty of a messenger: words that are suited 
to the object in hand, and no more. He should know how 
to express briefly his purpose, so as to produce the desired 
effect.” 42.) 

(59) After these words the hare Victory took leave of the 
hare-king and went to visit the elephant-king. (60) And when 
he had gone and beheld the elephant-king, he thot: (61) “It is 
impossible for such as me, with my small body, to meet him. 
Since they say: 

An elephant slays with a mere touch, a snake merely by 
smelling, a king with a mere laugh, an evil man even in 
extending courtesies. 43. 

(62) Therefore I will climb the mountain-peak before I salute 
the elephant-king.” After doing so he said: (63) ‘(Ho there!) 
Peace be with you!” (And hearing this) the elephant-king (lookt 
around and) said (to the hare): ‘‘ Who are you, and whence 
come you, Sir?” Said he: (64) ‘‘I am a messenger sent forth 
by the Lord Moon.” The king of the herd said: ‘Declare your 
business.” The hare said: ‘‘ You know, Sir, of course, that it 
is not right to find fault with a°messenger who is truthfully 
stating his message. (For each and every king uses a messenger 
as his mouthpiece. And it is said:) 

Even when there has been a resort to arms, a messenger 
speaks not falsely. Since they say only what they have been 
told to say, a king must not kill them. 44. 

(65) Now by the Moon’s command I say: ‘(How is it that 
you venture to inflict injury on others without taking account 
of the difference between yourself and your adversary? And 
it is said:) 

Whosoever blindly rushes into action without taking account 
of his own strength and weakness and of his enemy’s too, he 
is courting disaster. 45. 

(66) Now you have (unjustly) violated the Moon-lake, (which 
is distinguisht by my name,) (67) and have killed there the 
hares who are under my protection. And this is not right. 
Now I owe to them my own personal support. (68) Because 
I wear them on my breast, for that very reason I am known 
(among men) by the name of the Hare-markt.'® (69) If now 


16 The Hindus discern the picture of a hare, instead of a man, in the moon. 


368 Book III: War and Peace 


you do not cease from this (unlawful) conduct, then (you will 
suffer great harm thru me. If you cease you will get great profit; 
your body shall be refresht by my rays.1* Otherwise) I shall 
withhold my rays, and your body shall be scorcht with heat, 
and you shall (straightway) perish (along with your followers).’”’ 
(70) After this speech (of the messenger) the elephant-king’s 
heart was moved (with exceeding great fear), and he said 
(to him): (71) “(Friend,) this is true; I have offended (thru 
ignorance); now I will not commit any hostile act against the 
Moon.” (72) Said the other: ‘‘ His Majesty is right here in this 
very lake; so come, Sir, (all alone,) that I may show him to 
you; and when you have paid homage to our Lord (and pacified 
him) you may depart.” (73) So speaking he took the elephant 
by night to the Moon-lake and showed him in the water the 
image of (the full dise of) the moon. (74) But he (, the elephant- 
king,) thot: “J will (completely purify myself and then) pay 
homage to the god;”’ and he put his trunk into the water (to 
a distance of twice the length of a man’s arm), (75) Then the 
moon’s dise, stirring in the troubled water, moved this way 
and that (as if fixt on a wheel, so that the elephant saw a 
thousand moons). (76) (Then Victory, pretending that his heart 
was greatly alarmed, turned around and said: ‘‘Alas, alas! You 
have made the Moon twice as angry as before!’’) (77) Said he: 
‘Why is the revered Moon angry with me?” Victory said: 
‘Because you toucht his water.” (78) Thereupon, when he 
heard this, the elephant (with his tail between his legs withdrew 
his trunk and fell on his knees and) bowed his head down to 
the ground and said to the (revered) Moon with an, obeisance: 
(79) “O god, (it was thru ignorance that I did this;) forgive 
me! (And) I will not come back here again.’ (80) So saying 
(without even looking around) he went away (by the way he 
had come, and never came back again). 


(End of Story 3) 


(81) Therefore I say: ‘Even in a bluff may lie success” &e. 
(82) ‘Moreover, this evil-minded fellow (, the owl,) is mean 
and could not protect his subjects. And it is said: 


17 The Hindus suppose that the moon’s rays have a positively and definitely 
cooling and refreshing effect on whatever they touch. 


Story 3.—Story 2.—Story 4 369 


In applying to a mean king [as judge], how can two litigants 
vet off well? Both of them are doomed to destruction, like the 
hare and the partridge.’’ 46. 

(83) The birds said: (And) how was that?” Said he: 


STORY 4: CAT, PARTRIDGE, AND HARE 


(84) Once long ago I was dwelling in a certain tree. (85) In 
a hole under the (same) tree dwelt a bird called a partridge. 
(86) Now as a result of our dwelling together a (close) friend- 
ship (with one another) sprang up between us, and every day 
at early evening (after we had eaten and taken our recreation 
outside) we would spend the time in pleasant conversation with 
questions on both sides. (87) Then one time the partridge failed 
to arrive (even at even-tide), at the time when we were wont 
to converse. (88) For this reason | was much perturbed at 
heart, and I wondered: “ Can he have been killed or caught, 
or has he taken a liking to another dwelling-place (, that he 
does not come)?’ While I was pondering on this many days 
past. (89) (And) after this a hare named Long-ears came and 
settled in the hole in which he had lived. (90) And when I saw 
him I reflected: ‘That friend of mine is not; what concern have I 
with the dwelling?” (91) When he had remained there some 
time, the partridge came back (to the same place). (92) When 
he found the hare in his hole, he said: “(See here,) this is my 
place, so depart (from it quickly).”’ (93) He said (to him): ‘ Fool, 
(do you not know that) a dwelling (and food) are to be enjoyed 
by whoever is at hand?” (94) The partridge said: ‘‘There are 
witnesses!® available here; let us ask them (, since that is what 
the case demands. And it is said in the lawbooks): 

Concerning tanks, pools, and ponds, concerning a house and 
a dwelling, the testimony of neighbors is decisive; thus Manu?® 
has declared.” 47. 

(95) “So be it,” agreed the other, and they set out to have the 
question decided at law. (96) I also followed close behind them, 
being curious (to see what the outcome would be). (97) When 

18 Or, ‘ umpires.” 

19 Manu is the Hindu Adam, eponymous progenitor of the human race; 
but in later times he is principally renowned as reputed author of the most 


famous Hindu lawbook. 
Edgerton, Paicatantra. II. 24 


370 Book III: War and Peace 


they had not gone very far (from there) the partridge said 
(to the hare): ‘‘(But) who will hear our law-suit?” (98) The 
hare said: “‘(Why, here is) this aged cat named Curd-ears, 
who lives on the bank of the river, devoted to penance, and 
who shows compassion to all living creatures: he knows the 
law: he will make a lawful decision for us.” (99) (And hearing 
this) the partridge said: ‘Away with that mean creature! (And 
it is said:) 

(Do not trust one who covers himself with the mask of a 
devotee. Many devotees are seen at the holy pilgrimage-places 
who lack not throats and teeth!” 48.) 

(100) And hearing this (the cat) Curd-ears, (who had assumed 
a false aspect in order to make his living by easy means,) that 
he might win their confidence, stood up on two legs and gazed 
(steadfastly) towards the sun, and with outstretcht arms, closing 
one eye [only], engaged in prayer. (101) (And) as he prayed 
their hearts trusted in him, and they crept up towards him 
and made known their dispute about the dwelling [saying]: 
‘‘Q holy devotee, teacher of the law, we two have a dispute; 
so decide it for us according to the law-codes!” (102) And he 
said: ‘‘I am old and my senses are dulled, so that I cannot. 
hear very well from a distance. Come quite close and speak 
loud.”’ Then they came nearer and told their story. (103) Then 
he, (Curd-ears,) winning their confidence so as to make them 
come closer, recited texts from the lawbooks: 

‘When righteousness is destroyed, it destroys in turn; when 
righteousness is preserved, it preserves. Therefore we must 
not destroy righteousness, lest it, being destroyed, destroy 
us. 49. 

Righteousness is our only friend that follows us even in death; 
for all else goes to destruction together with the body. 50. 

In blind darkness are we sunk who offer sacrifices with 
beasts. A higher religious duty than harmlessness has never 
been nor shall be. 51. 

Whosoever regards other men’s wives like a mother, other 
men’s possessions like clods of earth, and all creatures like 
himself—he has true vision.” 52. 

(104) (So, to make a long story short,) by his hypocrisy he 
won their confidence to such an extent that they came up to 


Story 4: Cat, Partridge, and Hare.—Story 2: Birds elect King 371 


him quite close; and then with one stroke they were (both) 
caught and killed (by that mean creature). 


(End of Story 4) 


(105) Therefore I say: “In applying to a mean king [as judge]”’ 
&e. (106) “So this owl (, being a mean creature,) is in no way 
worthy of the kingship.” (107) (But) when they heard this 
(speech of his) they thot: ‘‘He has spoken well.” And they 
said: ‘‘ We will hold a meeting some other time and consider 
this important matter of the kingship.” So saying all the birds 
disperst as they had come. (108) (But the owl was left all alone, 
waiting for the coronation upon the seat of state. And he askt: 
‘Who was it that made this speech to my hurt?” And having 
learned that it was a crow,) the owl’s mind was inflamed by what 
the crow had said, and he said to him: (109) “ What injury have 
I ever done to you, that you interfered with my coronation? 

What is pierst by an arrow grows together; wood that is cut 
with an ax likewise, and even that which is burnt by a forest 
fire; [but] a wound made by words does not grow together. 53. 

(110) (In short,) now from this day forth there shall be 
enmity between us and you.” (111) So speaking the owl, in 
dudgeon, departed (to the place whence he had come). (112) 
But that crow reflected (, full of concern): ‘‘ What an evil 
thing I have done now, in a matter that concerns the common 
weal! (It is well said:) 

Whosoever speaks without good reason a word that is not 
appropriate to the time and the place, that is not fitted to future 
events, that is unfriendiy and degrading to the speaker—that 
shall not be [regarded as] a word; it shall be [regarded as] 
nothing but poison. 54. 

Surely a wise man, even if he be strong, should not de- 
liberately make another his enemy. For who that is in his right 
mind would eat poison without any purpose, merely because he 
knows that a physician is at hand? 5d. 

(113) So this has befallen me because of my stupidity. And 
whatever is done without first talking it over with well-wishing 
friends is sure to come out so. And it is said: 

After faithful friends have more than once considered it, and 
after he himself has repeatedly examined its bearings, then 

24* 


372 Book III: War and Peace 


only should a man proceed to any action, if he is wise. Such 
a man and no other is a vessel of fortune and renown.” 56. 
(114) After speaking thus the crow also departed (from that 


place). . 
(End of Story 2) 


(115) “So thus it was, Sire, that our feud with the owls 
arose as a result of a speech.” (116) Cloud-color said: “I 
have understood this [story]. Now, father, take thot and contrive 
some plan before they come back here to make an attack upon 
us.” (117) Said he: “ My. lord, of the six political methods,”° 
(namely; peace, war, waiting policy, march, alliance, and double- 
dealing,) peace and war have already been referred to. (118) 
But at present we have no opportunity for a waiting-policy, 
march, alliance, or double-dealing. Because: waiting-policy, in 
the face of a more powerful enemy, leads to the destruction 
of one’s citadel (and oneself), and march (evidently) means the 
abandonment of one’s citadel; and with what powerful ally 
could we ally ourselves? and to whom could we apply the 
policy of double-dealing? (119) Now under these circumstances 
there is no chance for us to apply the four devices of con- 
ciliation, bribery, dissension, and violence.*! There is [however] 
a fifth device, namely deceit, (not) found in the authorities. This 
I approve, and I shall resort even to this in order to conquer 
(and humiliate) the enemy. And it is said: 

Many powerless adversaries, opening hostilities, can succeed 
in tricking [their enemy] by their wits, as happened to the 
brahman in the case of the goat.” 57. 

(120) Said he: ‘And how was that?” Long-lived said: 


STORY 5: BRAHMAN AND ROGUES 


(121) Once a brahman who had got a goat from another village 
to make an animal-sacrifice was going to his own home with 
the goat on his shoulder, (122) when he was seen on the way 
by [some] rogues. They thot: “ Let us get the goat away from 
this brahman!” (123) So they came to a decision, and they 
(divided themselves into groups of one, two, and three, and) 


20 Compare Book I, § 188, et passim. 
21 Compare Book I, vss 133 and 134. 


Story 2.—Frame Story.—Story 5.—Frame Story 3713 


came in the opposite direction along the road before him. (124) 
But the first one of them said to the brahman: ‘‘ Why are you 
carrying this dog on your shoulder? (Or is it because he is 
good at killing animals?)’ (So saying he departed.) (125) The 
brahman thot: ‘‘ What does this villain mean? The idea of my 
carrying a dog on my shoulder!” (126) As soon as the next 
two (rogues) met him, they also said to the brahman: ‘‘ Brahman, 
what-is this unseemly thing that you are doing? The sacred 
cord, (the rosary, the holy water-pot, and the sect-mark on 
your forehead,) and a dog on your shoulder (—it does not fit 
at all)! But no ‘doubt it must be a clever dog at killing hares, 
deer, and boars.” (So saying they went past.) (127) But the 
brahman (in wonderment) put the goat on the ground, and felt 
of the parts of its body all over, (its ears, horns, privy parts, 
tail, and other members, and thot: “ They are fools; how can 
they imagine that this is a dog?”’) and put it on his shoulder 
again and went on. (128) After this the other three said to the 
brahman: “Touch us not! (Go to one side of us!) For you are 
pure in outward appearance alone, brahman; you are handling 
a dog, and so you must surely be a hunter! 2?” (So saying they 
departed.) (129) Then that brahman thot: “Can I have taken 
leave of my senses? And yet the majority must be right. Un- 
natural things are indeed found to occur in the world; perhaps 
this is an ogre that has taken the form of a dog. (After all 
an ogre would be capable of assuming a dog’s form.)” (130) 
So thinking he turned the goat loose, and bathed?, and went 
home. (131) And the rogues took the goat and ate it. 


(End of Story 5) 


(132) Therefore I say: ‘‘ Many powerless” &e. (133) “ There- 
fore, (Sire,) I have something to suggest; (think well on it and) 
do just as [ tell you.” (Said he: ‘ Father, what is it?” Long- 
lived said: ‘ Sire,) (134) You must pluck out my feathers, and 
revile me with very harsh words, and smear me with blood 
taken (from those who have been slain already), and throw me 
down under this same (banyan-)tree, and go to Mount Rsyamika, 


22 In India hunters constitute one of the lowest and most despised of 
castes; compare Book II, §§ 6 ff. 
23 To purify himself from the touch of a dog, a very impure animal. 


374 Book III: War and Peace 


and stay there with your followers, (135) until I (by means 
prescribed in the books of learning) start them all on the road 
to destruction,** and having accomplisht my purpose come (again 
into your presence. And you must show no mercy to me).” 
(136) After this had been done, at sunset (that) Foe-crusher 
flew up upon that (same) banyan-tree with his (retinue of) 
warriors. (137) And he could not find a single crow there. (And 
alighting on the top of the tree he thot: ‘‘ Where can those 
enemies have gone? ’’) (138) (Then) Long-lived, lying on the 
ground (unseen by them), reflected as follows: “If these foes 
depart without so much as discovering what has happened, then 
what have I accomplisht? (And it is said:) 

The first mark of intelligence, to be sure, is not to start 
things; the second mark of intelligence is to pursue to the end 
what you have started. 58. 

(139) (Therefore it is better not to begin anything than to 
drop what you have begun. So I will reveal myself to them 
by letting them hear my voice.) (140) With this thot Long- 
lived made a very feeble cry. (141) The owls who were near-by 
heard it, and realized that it was a crow’s ery, and reported 
it to their lord. (142) And hearing this, Foe-crusher, full of 
curiosity, came down and (made sure of the facts and) said to 
his ministers: ‘‘Ask him who he is,’’ (143) Thereupon he said: 
‘“‘T am Long-lived.” (144) Hearing this the owl-king was astonisht 
and said: “This is the well-beloved chief-minister of that crow- 
king. How did he get to such a condition?” (145) (Being 
questioned about this) he said (to him): ‘(My lord, listen!) 
After you had inflicted (something of) a massacre [upon the 
crows] and had gone away, Cloud-color (lookt upon his warriors 
that had escaped the slaughter, and was deeply distrest; and 
he) (146) took counsel with his ministers. To make a long story 
short, they were for undertaking your destruction. (147) (Then) 
I said: ‘They are strong, and we are helpless; hence (by all 
means) the best thing (for us) is simply to submit (to them). 
(And it is said:) | 

A powerless person, if he seeks his own welfare, should not 
even think of carrying on a feud with a more powerful enemy. 


*4 Literally, “make their faces turned towards the south [the region of 
Yama, god of death].” 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls 37d 


If he acts like the reed [that bends before the storm], 
he is not deprived of his possessions; if he acts like the 
moth [that flies into the flame], complete destruction awaits 
him.’ 59. 

(148) Then the crows said that I was taking sides with the 
enemy, and without a moment’s consideration they brought 
me to the state in which you find me.” (149) (And) when 
Foe-crusher heard this, he took counsel with his (hereditary) 
ministers, Red-eye, Cruel-eye, Flame-eye, Crooked-nose, and 
Wall-ear. (150) First among them he askt Red-eye: “ (Sir, 
under these circumstances) what is to be done?” (151) Said 
he: ‘“‘ What need for thinking it over? He should be killed’ 
without hesitation. For: 

A feeble enemy should be destroyed, before he has a chance 
to become strong. Afterwards, when he has gained strength 
and prowess, it may be hard to subdue him. 60. 

(152) Moreover, it is a well-known saying that if Fortune 
comes to you unsought and is rejected, she curses you. (And 
it is said:) 

Since opportunity comes only once to a man who is looking 
for opportunity, it is hard to find the opportunity again when 
he wishes to do the deed. 61. ; 

(153) So by killing him, (your enemy,) you will make your 
kingdom free from thorns.” (154) Having heard this (word 
of his) he askt Cruel-eye: ‘“ (Sir, but) what do you think?” 
Said he: ‘(Sire,) he must not be killed (since he is a fugitive. 
Because): 

Cowardly and merciless men, who in this life strike down 
fugitives that are buffeted by many blows and that make 
piteous appeals to them, are doomed to Raurava and the other 
[hells]. 62. | 

(By protecting a terrified fugitive who takes refuge with him, 
aman gets more merit than by performing the Horse-sacrifice”® 
complete with all its excellent accompaniments.” 63.) 

(155) Having heard this (also) he askt Flame-eye: ‘ (Sir,) 
what do you think?” Said he: ‘“(Sire,) it is most certain that 
a fugitive (even tho an enemy) must not be killed. 


2° The most elaborate and costly, and so the most meritorious, of the 
Vedic sacrifices. 


376 Book III: War and Peace 


For it is related that a dove entertained in due fashion its 
enemy who applied to it for refuge, and even invited him to 
feast on its own flesh.?® 64. 

‘She who is ever wont to shrink from me, now embraces 
me! My benefactor, blessings upon you! Take away all that 
I have!’ 65. 

(156) (But) the thief said: 

‘IT see nothing that I would take from you. If there should 
be something to take, I will come back again, if she should 
not embrace you.’”’ 66. 

(157) Foe-crusher said: ‘“*(And) how was that?” Said he: 


STORY 6: OLD MAN, YOUNG WIFE, AND THIEF 


(158) Once there was a certain merchant who was more 
than eighty years old, but who by the attraction of his money 
succeeded in marrying a young wife. (159) (But) she, being 
(in the bloom of her youth and) united to an old man, felt 
that her youth was wasted, and tho she lay on the bed beside 
him every night, turned her slender body away, ({motionless] 
as a painted picture,) and was completely wretched. (160) (Now) 
one night a thief, a robber of (other men’s) goods, came into 
his house. (161) (And) she saw him and was frightened, and 
turned around, and threw her arms about her husband and 
held him close. (162) And when this happened his whole body 
was thrilled with love and joy, and thinking “ Why has this 
wonderful thing happened to me, that surpasses imagination?” 
he lookt all around, and caught sight of the thief; (and he 
reflected again: ‘Of course it is thru fear of him that she 
embraces me!” Realizing this,) (163) he said (to him): ‘ (My 
friend,) she who is ever wont to shrink from me” &e. 
(164) But the thief said to him (friendly-wise): “I see nothing 
that I would take from you” Ke. 


(End of Story 6) 


(165) So (in this case) favorable :consideration was shown 
even to a thief, a robber of other men’s goods and an evil-doer. 
*6 This stanza alludes to a story of a self-sacrificing dove which enter- 


tained, in the manner described, a bird-hunter. The tale is told, in a versified 
form, in one comparatively late version of the Paficatantra at this place. 


Frame Story.—Story 6.—Frame Story.—Story 7 317 


(How much more to one who comes as a fugitive!) (166) Besides, 
(since he has been injured by them,) he will help in owr success 
(and work to their destruction, or he may reveal their weak 
points). So he must not be killed.” (167) Hearing this Foe-crusher 
askt (his next minister) Crooked-nose: ‘‘(Sir,) what should be 
done (in the present case)?”’ Said he: “(Sire,) he must not be 
killed. For: 

Even enemies may be useful when they fall out with each 
other. The thief saved [the brahman’s] life, while the ogre 
[saved] his two cows.” 67. 

(168) The king said: “And how was that?” He told this 
story: 

STORY 7: BRAHMAN, THIEF, AND OGRE 


(169) Once a certain (poor) brahman received a present of a 
pair of cows, which (had been brought up from young calves by 
feeding with ghee, oil, salt, grass, and [other] wholesome foods, 
so that they) were very fat. (170) And a certain thief saw them, 
and he thot (as follows): “(This very day) I shall steal them.’’ 
(171) So he started out in the early evening, (172) and as 
he went along some (unknown) person toucht him (on the 
shoulder). (173) Whereupon he askt (in alarm): ‘‘ Who are 
you?” (174) (And) he spoke (truthfully): “I am a (night- 
roaming) brahman-ogre.*’ (175) You (also) tell me who you 
are.” (176) Said he: “I am a thief.” (And when the other 
askt again: ‘‘ Where are you going?” he said:) “I intend to 
steal a pair of cows from a (certain) brahman. (But where are 
you going?)” (177) (Then being reassured by this information) 
the (brahman-)ogre (also) said: “I too have started out to 
seize that same brahman.” (178) Then they went thither (both 
together) and stayed (at one side, waiting for the proper time). 
(179) And when the brahman had gone to sleep the brahman- 
ogre was creeping up to seize him (first); (180) when the thief 
said to him: ‘(This is not the right way.) After I have stolen 
his two cows, then you may seize him.” (181) Said the other: 
‘(That too would be wrong.) Perchance the noise (of the cows) 
might wake him, and then I should have come in vain.” 


*7 A brahman (in a previous existence) changed, because of sinful actions, 
into an ogre. Ogres (rdksasas) are monsters who live on the flesh of men 


378 Book III: War and Peace 


(182) The thief said: “ When you seize him he may arise 
and make an outery. (Then all the rest [of the people] will be 
roused; and if that happens) then I should be unable to steal 
his two cows. (So I will steal the cows first, and afterwards 
you may eat the brahman’)” (183) As they were thus disputing 
with one another (they got angry, and with their rivalry) they 
woke up the brahman (simultaneously). (184) (Thereupon) the 
thief said: ‘(Brahman,) this brahman-ogre wants to seize you.” 
(185) (But) the (brahman-)ogre said: ‘‘ This thief wants to steal 
your two cows.” (186) Hearing this the brahman got up and 
(being put on his guard) saved himself from the ogre by reciting 
the mantra?® (of his sect’s deity), and saved his two cows from 
the thief by brandishing his cudgel. (187) Ge both) the thief 


and the ogre departed. 
(End of Story 7) 


(188) Therefore I say: “Even enemies may be useful” &e. 
(189) ‘‘ (Moreover:) 

It is also related, you know, that the noble and virtuous Sibi 
gave his own flesh to the falcon to save the dove.?® 68. 

(190) Therefore you (also) ought not to slay a fugitive.” 
(191) Thereupon he askt Wall-ear. And he too gave the same 
advice. (192) Then Red-eye (arose, and smiling ironically to 
himself) said again: “(Alas!) Our lord here is ruined by you 
with your bad policy. And it is said: 

Even when an injury is done him before his very eyes, a 
fool is satisfied by fair words. The carpenter carried his own 
wife with her lover on his head.” 69. . 

(193) They said: “ (And) how was that?’ He replied: 


STORY 8: CUCKOLD CARPENTER 


(194) In a certain town there was a carpenter, (195) whose 
beloved wife was unchaste, as he had been warned by his 
friends and kinsmen. (196) So to ascertain the truth he said to 
her: ‘‘ My dear, there is a king’s hall to be built in a far-away 
village, and I must go there (tomorrow). I shall spend a number 

°8 Sacred stanza. 


ag This stanza alludes to a well-known story of a self-sacrificing king 
named Sibi. The story is inserted secondarily at this point in one version. 


i 


Story 7.—Frame Story.—Story 8.—Frame Story 319 


of days there. So make ready some provisions such as are 
needful for my journey.” (197) And she right gladly made ready 
the provisions as he bade her. (198) (And when she had done 
so, he took his tools and his provisions for the journey and) 
while it was still night (, during the last watch,) he said to 
her: ‘‘I am going, my dear; lock the door!” (199) But the 
carpenter returned without her knowledge, and entered his 
house (by the back door), and placed himself with his apprentice 
under his (own) bed. (200) She however was overjoyed at the thot 
that she could meet her lover this day without any hindrance; 
and she caused her lover to be summoned by her go-between, 
and they began to eat and drink and so forth without fear in 
that very house. (201) And before they satisfied their lust, it 
happened that in moving her feet she toucht the carpenter on 
the knee. (202) At this she thot: ‘‘ Without doubt that must 
be the carpenter! Now what can I do?” (203) (And) at that 
moment her lover (adjured her and) said: ‘‘(Dear, tell me,) 
which do you love more, me or your husband?” (204) Where- 
upon that quick-witted woman said: (205) ‘“* What a question 
to ask! We women of course are light in our morals and do 
all manner of things; (206) (in short,) if we had not noses, we 
should undoubtedly be willing to eat dung; (that tells the whole 
story in a nutshell.) (207) [But] if I should hear of any harm, 
(even the slightest,) to my husband, I should (straightway) give 
up the ghost.” (208) Then the carpenter’s heart was deceived 
by the lying words of that shameless woman, and he said to 
his apprentice: (209) ‘Long live my beloved and supremely 
devoted wife! I will honor her in the eyes of all people!” 
(210) So saying he lifted her with her lover, as they lay in 
bed, on his head, and ran with them along the king’s highway 
(and the other streets), and all the people laught at him. 


(End of Story 8) 


(211) Therefore I say: “Even when an injury is done him 
before his very eyes” &c. (212) ‘So we are surely destroyed 
(root and branch. This certainly is a true saying): 

(Ministers in’ outward guise, but really foes, the wise should 
hold those who depart from salutary policy and practise the 
the reverse of it. 70.) 


380 Book II]: War and Peace 


(Even the noble are assuredly destroyed, like darkness at 
sunrise, if they are forgetful of [the proper] place and time 
[for actions], because of having a foolish minister.’ 71.) 

(213) But even then [the owl-king] paid no heed to his words, 
but lifted up Long-lived and started to take him to his own 
citadel. (214) At this point Long-lived said (in order to win 
his confidence): ‘“‘ Sire, (why take me along, since in this con- 
dition I am good for nothing?) What use have I for life in 
my present plight? Therefore cause fire to be furnisht me, and 
I will throw myself into it.’ (215) Red-eye (however,) who 
understood his secret purpose, (indicated by his expression of 
countenance,) said: ‘‘ Why do you wish to throw yourself into 
fire?’ (216) Said he: ‘*(Why,) I have been reduced to this 
plight on your account: hence I wish to obtain rebirth as an 
owl, by virtue of sacrificing my body *° in the fire, that 1 may 
pay back the grudge I owe the crows.” (217) Red-eye said: 

“This speech of yours is like wine mixt with poison, in that 
its inner nature is concealed; its primary character is delightful, 
but what will come out of it is not easy to guess therefrom.*! 72. 

(218) Villain, for you to be reborn as an owl is impossible 
(and unthinkable). Because: 

Renouncing the sun as hysband, and the rain and the wind 
and the mountain, the mouse-maiden returned to her own nature. 
For nature is hard to overcome.” 73. 

(219) He said: “ (And) how was that?” Red-eye said: 


STORY 9: MOUSE-MAIDEN 


(220) Once (in) a certain (country a) sage was about to rinse 
his mouth (after his bath) in the Ganges, (221) when a (young) 
mouse dropt from the mouth of a faleon and fell into his hand. 
(222) (Perceiving it) he placed it in a leaf (of a banyan-tree, 


8° It is a common belief in India that one who has acquired sufficient 
religious merit, and especially one who gives up his life as an act of devotion, 
ean obtain rebirth in any state he desires. 

31 This verse is difficult, and in part textually corrupt. It seems to me 
that the words prakrti and vikdra are used with allusion to their technical - 
use in the Samkhya philosophy; prakrti is the primary: creative power of 
nature, vikdra the elements that evolve out of it. The “evolvents” of the 
crows speech are here said to be “not recognizable” from its delightful 
‘** primary nature.” 


/ 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls.—Story 9: Mouse-Maiden 381 


and bathed once more and rinst his mouth and performed the 
rites of expiation and the like,**) and set out for home. (223) 
And remembering the mouse he thot: “It was a cruel thing 
that I did in abandoning the little mouse that has lost its father 
and mother. (This was sinful of me; because | am now her 
guardian.) ’ (224) So thinking he (returned and) by the power 
of his penance changed the mouse into a maiden, (225) and 
took her home and gave her to his wife, (who was childless,) 
saying: (226) ‘‘(My dear,) here is a daughter for you; (take 
her and) bring her up carefully.’”’ From that time on she brought 
her up and cherisht her fondly. (227) Now when in the course 
of time she had reacht the age of twelve, the sage began to 
think about her marriage: ‘It is wrong to let her time [of 
puberty] pass by; for this would be a sin on my part. (And 
it is said:) 

But if a maiden beholds her flux in her father’s house, un- 
married, that maiden is unmarriageable; her parents are con- 
sidered to be Sidras.*? 74. 

(228) Therefore I will give her to a (powerful) husband 
worthy of herself. (And. it is said:) 

Only between two persons who are well-matcht in means and 
in blood should there be marriage or friendship, but not between 
the high and the low.” 75. 

(229) With this thot he summoned the venerable Thousand- 
rayed [Sun], and said: (230) ‘You are powerful; marry this 
my daughter!’’ (231) But that venerable god, (the World- 
protector,) who sees all things (immediately), replied (to him): 
(232) ‘(Reverend sir,) the clouds are more powerful than I; 
they cover me so that I become invisible.” (233) The sage 
(said: “That is true!’ and) summoning a cloud (he) said: 
“Take my daughter!” (234) But he said: ‘‘ The wind is stronger 
even than I. It blows me hither and thither in all directions.” 
(235) Then he summoned the wind (also) and said: “Take my 
daughter!’ (236) (Thus addrest) the wind said: ‘(Reverend 
sir,) the mountains are more powerful than I, since I cannot 
move them (so much as a finger’s breadth).”” (237) Then he 
summoned a mountain and said: “Take my daughter!” (238) 


82 All this was necessary as purification after touching the mouse. 
38 Members of the lowest caste. 


382 Book III: War and Peace 


He replied: ‘‘(We are indeed ‘immovable,’** but) the mice are 
stronger than we; they make us full of countless holes (on all 
sides).”” (239) At these words the sage summoned a mouse and 
said: ‘“‘Take my daughter!” (240) Thereupon he said: ‘(This is 
out of the question.) How can she enter into my hole?” (241) At 
which he said: ‘‘ Very true!”’, and by the power of his penance 
turned the girl into a mouse again and gave her to the mouse. 


(End of Story 9) 


(242) Therefore I say: ‘‘ Renouncing the sun as husband” &e. 
(243) Now [the owl-king] paid no heed to the words of Red- 
eye, but took Long-lived and went to his own stronghold (, to 
the ruin of his tribe). (244) And as Long-lived was being taken 
thither he reflected (smiling to himself): 

“The one who said that I should be killed, speaking to his 
lord’s profit, he is the only one of the ministers here that knows 
the true science of polity. 76. 

(245) If they had but been willing to listen to him, my hopes 
would have been disappointed.” (246) (Now when they reacht the 
entrance of the stronghold) Foe-crusher said (to his ministers): 
‘Let Long-lived be granted any place he wishes to live in.” 
(247) But Long-lived fixt his residence at the entrance of 
the stronghold (, thinking that when the time came he would 
easily escape). (248) And every day the owls went forth as 
they pleased on expeditions of plunder, and (when they had 
eaten) they brought abundant meat at the command of their 
king and gave it to Long-lived. (249) (But that same Red-eye 
summoned his kinsmen and said: “I perceive that we shall 
very soon be destroyed because of this crow. Therefore it is 
not wise for us to remain in the same place with these fools. 
Let us accordingly seek another mountain cave and dwell there 
in peace.” So saying Red-eye with all his followers departed to 
another place.) (250) Then that (crow) Long-lived in a short 
time regained his strength and his plumage, and his body 
became handsome as a peacock. And (when he had learned 
all about the enemy—his strength and prowess, his stronghold 
and abiding-place, his weak-points and ways of approach,) he 
reflected as follows: 


The word ‘‘immovable”’ also means “ mountain” in Sanskrit. 


Story 9: Mouse-Maiden.—Frame Story: Crows and Owls 383 


‘‘T have spied out their strength and power, and their strong- 
hold too, all about it. Now without delay I must bring about 
the destruction of our foes.” 77. 

(251) With these thots, in order to massacre the owls, he 
filled the holes at the entrance of their stronghold with rubbish 
and set out in haste to Cloud-color. (252) And when Cloud-color 
had embraced him eagerly and askt him what had happened, 
(253). he said: ‘(My lord,) this is no time for telling my 
adventures. (Time is passing swiftly by.) (254) (Therefore) do 
you take each one a stick of wood and go; (255) and I will 
come and bring fire. (256) And let us (go with all speed and) 
burn the (enemies’) home with all (the enemies) in it.” (257) 
Even so they did, and they put kindling-wood and the like 
into the holes that were filled with rubbish and set fire to them. 
And straightway all their enemies were destroyed root and 
branch at one stroke. (258) And having burned the lair (as 
far as the [under-|world of serpents, and having succeeded in 
his full desire,) Long-lived reestablisht Cloud-color as king, 
with all his powers,*® in that same banyan-tree (, to the sound 
of music denoting felicity, well-being and success). (259) Here- 
upon Cloud-color (, seeing that his enemies were overthrown,) 
bestowed (all manner of) honors upon Long-lived and in great 
joy spoke to him (thus): “ Father, how did you spend your 
time while you were in the midst of the enemies? 

Nay, it is better for those whose deeds are righteous to throw 
themselves into flaming fire, than to endure even for a moment 
association with an enemy.” 78. 

(260) Said he: “(Sir,) 

When danger threatens, a wise mind must follow any way what- 
ever, be it great or humble, which may lead to safety. Did not the 
Diadem-crowned [Arjuna], woman-fashion, adorn with bracelets 
his arms like elephant’s trunks, that could wield mighty weapons 
and were markt with the bruises of the bow-string? °° 79. 


35 “ Powers;” the Sanskrit word is prakrti, often meaning “[a king’s]| 
ministers,” but here probably used in the wider sense found in Book I, 
§ 184, which see (with note). 

36 In this and the following vss reference is made to the various 
humiliations suffered by the five Pandava brothers, the chief heroes of the 
Mahabharata, and their wife Draupadi. Vss 79 and 81 refer to Arjuna, 80 to 
Bhima, 82 to Yudhisthira, 83 to Nakula and Sahadeva, 84 to Draupadi. 


384 Book III: War and Peace 


A wise man, even if he be powerful, must ever be willing 
to bide his time, and even to dwell with mean and evil folk, 
as hard to endure as a thunder-bolt. Did not the all-powerful 
Bhima in the house of the Matsya[-king] rub hands with cooks, 
and were not his hands Stained with smoke and wearied with 
the toil of handling cooking-spoons? 80. 

Whatsoever action presents itself, be it pleasant or hateful, 
an intelligent man, biding his time, should put his heart into 
it and do it, when he has fallen upon adversity. Did not the 
Left-handed [Arjuna] wear a [woman’s] jingling girdle, donned 
in sport, tho his arms had been [at other times] busy with the 
clanging strokes of the broad, tremulous bow-string of Gandiva 
{Arjuna’s bow]? 81. 

A wise man who desires success, even tho he be full of 
courage and prowess, should put aside his dignity and stand 
carefully watching his step in the situations ordained by fate. 
The illustrious son of Dharma [Yudhisthira] was served with 
respect by his brothers who were like [Indra] the king of 
the gods, [Kubera] the god of wealth, and [Yama] the god of 
death; yet did he not for a long time carry in his distress the 
[brahman’s] triple staff? 82. 

The two sons of Madri [Nakula and Sahadeva] possest beauty 
and nobility, and were endowed with the highest qualities; yet 
they entered into the service of Virata as herds of his kine 
and horses. 83. 

Draupadi was blest with unexcelled beauty, with the fine 
qualities of youth, and with birth in a noble family; she was 
like [the goddess of] Fortune herself. Yet by the ,power of 
Fate the lapse of time brought her to the point, you know, 
of pounding sandalwood-paste for a long period in the palace 
of the Matsya king, under the haughty and insolent orders of 
girls who called her ‘serving-maid.’”’ 84. 

(261) Cloud-color said: ‘ Like the task of [standing on] the 
blade of a sword (I ween) is association with an enemy.” 
Said he: “ (Sire,) that is true. (And yet:) 

When a wise man finds himself shorn of power, he 
bears it without betraying his feelings, acting like a friend, 
biding his time, and covering his weakness with [pretended] 
affection. 85. 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls 385 


(262) (Now to put it briefly,) never before have I seén such 
a collection of fools, except Red-eye alone. But he understood 
quite correctly what was in my heart. The others however 
were ministers in name alone. What use had they, who did 
not know this ?— 

A servant that has come over from the enemy, and that is 
eager to dwell with his [former] foes, is spoiled for use by 
the constant uneasiness [which he causes]; for it is like living 
with a serpent. 86, 

Dangerous even to a much later time is a failing that can 
cause total destruction; it is like the malady that comes to the 
silk-eotton tree from the dove that has eaten the seeds of the 
fig or banyan tree.*’ 87. 

Foes find oceasion to strike at their foes—if they are not 
careful in regard to things both seen and unseen—when they 
are sitting or lying down or on the march, or when occupied 
with eating and drinking. 88, 

Therefore a wise man must carefully guard himself, as the 
abiding-place of the ‘ group of three ’**. For carelessness brings 
destruction. 89. (And this has been well said:) 

Being ill-advised, who can escape faults of policy? Eating 
unwholesome food, who is not tormented by diseases? Who is 
not made insolent by good fortune? Who can escape the blow 
of death? Who is not afflicted by sensuality due to women? 90. 

An arrogant*? man loses his renown; a dishonest man, his 
friend; one that ignores the holy rites, his family; a man that 
is too eager for worldly success, his religion; a vicious man 
loses the fruits of learning; a miser loses happiness; and a king 
whose ministers are careless loses his kingdom. 91. 

Fire waxes strong in dry kindling-wood, affliction in fools, 
anger in the capricious, love in the handsome, wisdom in the 
intelligent, righteousness in the compassionate, fortitude in the 
noble. 92. 


57 The meaning is that the seeds of the other trees are past with the 
excrement of the dove upon the silk-cotton tree, and there sprout, causing 
the destruction of the latter. This alleged occurrence is alluded to elsewhere 
in Indian literature. 

°° The three objects of human desire (see page 272, note 4). They all 
“abide in” or depend on oneself. 

Seatr, ‘dull’? 


Edgerton, Paiicatantra. II. 25 


386 Book III: War and Peace 


(263) Now, O king, you said very truly that to endure 
association with foes is like the task of [standing on] the blade 
of a sword. (You show that you are wise.) However: 

A wise man, to accomplish his end, may even carry his foe 
on his shoulder. The cobra carried the frogs and so destroyed 
them.” 93. 

(264) Said the other: ‘‘(And) how was that?” Long-lived 
said: 


STORY 10: FROGS RIDE SERPENT 


(265) Once there was a certain aged cobra named Weak- 
venom. (266) He took thot with himself thus: “How can I 
live comfortably in this manner of life?” (267) Then he went 
to a pond where there were many frogs, and took his seat 
there making himself appear as if overwhelmed with grief. (268) 
Now as he sat thus a frog in the water askt him: “ (Uncle,) 
why do you not look around for food today as you used to?” 
(269) Said he: “ My friend, how could I have any desire for 
food, wretch that I am? (And this is the reason.) (270) Last 
night (as I was looking around for food right early in the 
evening) | caught sight of a frog, and drew myself up ready 
to spring on him and catch him. (271) But he (saw me, and 
in fear of death) fled away into the midst of a group of brahmans 
(who were busily engaged in reciting holy texts); and I could 
not make out where he had gone. (272) And I bit a (certain) 
brahman’s son in the toe, being misled by its resemblance to 
a frog; (273) (whereupon) he died on the spot. (274) His father 
(was overcome with grief and) curst me (, saying): (275) 
‘Wretch! Since you have bitten my son, who never did you 
any harm, because of this crime you shall become a vehicle 
for frogs to rtde on. (276) And you shall obtain for your 
sustenance [only] what their grace allows you.’ (277) So I have 
come for you to ride upon me.” (278) (And that frog told this 
to all the others.) At this they were overjoyed, and they all 
went and told it to the frog-king, whose name was Web-foot. 
(279) Whereupon he (too, with all his ministers), considering 
it a remarkable thing, came in great excitement and climbed 
out of the pond and mounted on the serpent’s back, with in- 
finite contentment. (280) (And after him in turn the others 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls.—Story 10: Frogs ride Serpent 387 


seated themselves in order of rank; and some who could not 
find room ran along behind.) (281) But Weak-venom displayed 
many kinds of different motions (, all to further his own interests). 
(282) Now Web-foot said (as soon as he came in contact with 
the serpent): 

“Travelling on Weak-venom suits me better than on an 
elephant or a chariot or a horse, or on a man-drawn ear or a 
boat.” 94, } 

(283) Now on the next day Weak-venom made a pretense of 
exhaustion. And Web-foot said to him: “ (Friend,) why do you 
draw me so very slowly today (and not as you did before)?” 
(284) Said he: “Sire, because of lack of food I have not the 
strength to carry you (today as I formerly did).” (285) (There- 
upon) he said: “ (Friend,) eat [some of] the little frogs.” (286) 
Said he: “I wanted to do that myself, but I cannot eat except 
by grace of Your Majesty’s orders; thus my life depends upon 
you.” (287) Then he received permission; and thenceforth he 
gradually devoured the frogs, as many as he liked. (288) (And 
in a very few days he renewed his strength.) And with deep 
satisfaction he smiled to himself, and said: 

“By a trick I have got for myself manifold food, in the 
frogs. How long a time before they will be all gone, with me 
eating them!” 95. 

(289) Now (when) Web-foot (heard this his suspicions were 
aroused, and wondering what he was saying, he) askt him: 
‘What did you say?” (290) (At which) the serpent (to conceal 
his expression) replied: ‘‘ (Nothing.” And when he again charged 
him [to speak], he said: ‘‘ My lord,) this is what I said: 

Let a man never allow himself to be blasted by the curse 
of a brahman! Better is the state of a mountain-crag or a tree 
struck by the scorching blast of lightning.” 96. 

(291) So in spite of all these things Web-foot failed utterly 
to understand (, because his mind was misled by these false 
words). (292) (To put it briefly,) that serpent devoured every 
one of them, so that not so much as the seed of them was left. 

(End of Story 10) 


(293) Therefore I say: “[A wise man, to accomplish his 
end,| may even carry his foe on his shoulder” &c. (294) “So, 
Edgerton, Paiicatantra, II. 26 


388 Book III: War and Peace 


O king, even as Weak-venom destroyed the frogs, thus I also 
destroyed (all) our enemies. (And so:) 

A fire that blazes up in the forest burns, but spares the 
roots; while a flood of water, mild and cooling tho it is, tears 
up [the trees] roots and all.” 97. 

(295) Cloud-eolor said: “ That is true. (And likewise:) 

This is the greatness of great men who wear the ornaments 
of good policy, that they turn not from what they have under- 
taken even when serious trouble arises. 98. 

(296) Thus it is that you, Sir, have brought about complete 
destruction of our enemies.” Said he: “Sire, so it is. (And it 
is said:) 

A remnant of debt, a remnant of fire, a remnant of disease 
likewise, and a remnant of the foe—these a wise man should 
blot out utterly, leaving no remnant. By so doing he shall not 
fail. 99. 

(297) Sire, you are a favorite of fortune (more than others). 
Everything that is undertaken on your behalf succeeds. And 
again: 

One should join the strong with the skillful, and the skillful 
with the quick and energetic. Both of these shall prosper if 
they keep their outlay moderate. 100. 

If a man be self-controlled, truthful, wise, and resolute, is 
there aught that can stay out of the reach of such a man? 101. 

Whose heart does not sink when troubles arise and is not 
over-glad in success, who controls his anger and shows for- 
bearance, and knows the time to exert himself, who conceals 
scandals with care and is watchful of weak points,--fortune 
rests in the hands of a man of such behavior whose mind is 
disciplined. 102, 

‘Who am I? What are the present time and place, and what 
good or evil qualities are in evidence? Who are my enemies, 
and who my allies? What power have 1? What means of carry- 
ing out a useful plan? What store of good fortune have I? 
What continuance of prosperity? And what should be my reply 
if my words are rejected?’ Good men who fix their minds thus 
steadfastly on success are not disappointed. 103. 

(298) Therefore prowess (by itself) alone will not bring the 
supreme desire to fruition. And it is said: 


Frame Story: Crows and Owls 389 


For foes that are killed with weapons are not killed, but 
those that are killed by wit are really killed and never appear 
again. A weapon kills only a man’s body; wit destroys his tribe 
and his power and his renown. 104. 

An arrow shot by an archer may kill a single man, or it 
may not. A clever device launcht by a clever man may destroy 
a kingdom along with the king. 105. 

(299) So if a man be (thus) attended by [the favor of] fate 
(and by manly endeavor), all his actions easily succeed. Since: 

His wit comes into play at onee when he undertakes an 
action; his presence of mind is steadfast; riches come to him 
of their own accord; his plans go not awry; he achieves com- 
plete fruition, and so—is it surprising?—he attains high station; 
and he takes delight in deeds of renown: such is the man of 
destiny! 106, ] 

(300) Therefore kingship is for him that has liberality, wisdom, 
and valor. And it is said: 

To a man who is liberal, brave, and wise, people attach 
themselves, and these people are his subordinates*®. To him 
who has subordinates*? comes wealth; from wealth, distinction; 
to the distinguisht man authority, and from that kingship.” 107. 

(301) Cloud-color said: “ Father, the science of polity shows 
its benefits quickly; for you by your politic course found access 
to the owl-king Foe-crusher and destroyed him with all his 
followers.”’ Long-lived said: ‘ Sire, 

Even if your purpose can only be attained by resorting to 
violent means, it is well first to show humility. A princely tree 
with lofty top, the noblest product of the forest, is not felled 
‘until homage has been paid to it. 108. 

(302) But, my lord, what profit is there in words which in 
the outcome lead to no (opportunity for) action? Well has it 
been said: 

Words spoken by irresolute men, afraid of exertion, whose 
only interest is to amuse themselves with random prattle, lead 
to disappointment in the result, and become the objects of 
ridicule in the world. 109. | 

(303) (And wise men should not neglect even matters of 
slight importance. Because:) 


*° Or, punningly, “good qualities,” 
26* 


390 Book III: War and Peace 


(‘I shall be able to do this; it is a slight matter and easy 
to perform; it requires no care!’ So some men look upon their 
duties; and thru the blindness of negligence they fall into the 
agony of grief, which comes quickly when a mishap occurs. 110.) 

(304) Now today my lord’s enemies are overthrown, so that 
he will be able to sleep in peace as of old. (And this has been 
said :) 

(In a house that contains no serpent or in which the serpents 
have been killed one can sleep in peace. But where a serpent 
has been seen and has escaped, it is hard to find sleep. 111.) 

(Until they have finisht the performance of exalted deeds 
that require long-continued exertions, but that are blest by the 
benedictions of their loved ones; that demand the height of 
skill and prowess, but that win for them the place of their 
desires;—until such time how can men that are impassioned 
with ambition, pride, and enterprise find room for contentment 
in their impatient hearts? 112.) 

(305) Now because I have brought to completion the work 
I had begun, my spirit seems to find rest. (How so?) 

As a heart that is freed from fever, as a body that has cast 
off a heavy burden is lighter, so the spirit becomes lighter 
when one has crost a sea [of troubles] by accomplishing his 
vowed purpose upon his foe. 113. 

(306) So now that your enemies have been destroyed, devote 
yourself to the protection of your subjects, and enjoy for long 
this kingdom, in the majesty of your throne with its parasol *4 
firmly establisht in succession to your children and childt en 
children. And also: 

A king who does not delight his subjects with protection 
and other benefits—his name has no more use than the [false] 
teat on the neck of the she-goat. 114. 

(The king that loves virtues, despises vices, and takes delight 
in good policy, shall long enjoy the royal majesty that is 
clothed with the firm-fixt chowrie*! and adorned with the white 
parasol.*? 115.) 

(307) And you must not delude yourself with the pride of 
good fortune, thinking ‘TI have got possession of the kingdom.’ 
And that for this reason, because the fortunes of kings are 

‘1 Emblems of royalty. 





Frame Story: Crows and Owls 391 


undependable. (How so?) The Fortune of kingship is apt to 
fall the moment she is mounted, as a bamboo reed that is 
climbed. (Like quicksilver) she is hard to hold even by (end- 
less) effort. However earnestly you pursue her favor, she betrays 
you in the end. Like a prince of the apes, she is fickle in her 
changing humors. Like a streak of water on the petal of a 
water-lily, there is no clinging to her. She is unsteady as the 
course of the wind, undependable as alliance with the ignoble, 
inaccessible to kindness as (the race of) vipers; (she glows but 
for a moment, as the streak of clouds at twilight;) she is 
perishable in her very nature, as a row of bubbles in the 
water; (she shows no gratitude for what is done for her, as 
the nature of the body;) she vanishes the moment she is seen, 
as a mass of riches that one gets in a dream. (In short:) 

(No sooner has a king been installed in his kingdom, than 
he must turn his mind to [threatening] evils. For the vessels 
[of holy water] used at the time of the coronation pour out 
upon the king disasters along with the water. 116.) 

(308) (And there is no man whatsoever that is not liable to 
misfortunes. And it is said:) 

When one reflects on Rama’s banishment, the humiliation of 
Bali, the dwelling in the forest of the sons of Pandu, the 
destruction of the Vrsnis, King Nala’s loss of his kingdom, the 
dwarf-existence of Visnu, and the slaying of Arjuna, and [what 
happened to Ravana,| the Lord of Ceylon,—fit is clear that] 
man undergoes all [that befalls him] by the power of Destiny, 
and none can save any one from it. 117. 

(Whither has gone Dasaratha, the friend of the King of the 
Gods, who fought in heaven? Whither has gone King Sagara, 
who controlled the sea’s flood? Whither the son of Vena, that 
sprang from the palm of [his father’s] hand? Whither Manu, 
the Sun’s flesh and blood? Has not almighty Time [Destiny], 
that first opened their eyes, now closed them? 118.) 

King, ministers, fair houris, parks and_pleasure-gardens, 
lamented by men of olden time—all, all alike have been devoured 
by the jaws of Death. 119. 

Learning is the adornment of the mind, vice of folly, passion 
of an elephant, water of a river, the moon of night, ascetic con- 
templation of resolute character, and good policy of kingship. 120, 


oa 


392 Book III: War and Peace 


Joy is destroyed by disappointment, the autumn by the — 
coming of winter, darkness by the sun, a kind deed by in- 
gratitude, grief by a pleasant occurrence, disasters by good 
policy, wd fortune, however nine cea it may be, by bad 
policy. 121. 

(309) Thus a king who provides his subjects with the blessings 
of wise counsel thru his good policy (in all respects), enjoys | 
the blessings of royalty.” 

Here ends the Third Book, called War and Peace (or the Crows and the Owls). 


~~ S 





BOOK IV 


THE LOSS OF ONE’S GETTINGS, 
OR, THE APE AND THE CROCODILE 


(1) Now here begins this, the fourth book, called the Loss 
of One’s Gettings; of which this is the opening stanza: 

Whosoever is beguiled by soft words into giving up a thing 
that he has got, is deceived just as the foolish crocodile was 
by the ape. 1. 

(2) The king’s sons said: “ How was that?’ Visnusarman 
said: 

(3) On a (certain) seashore once dwelt an ape-king named 
Wrinkle-face. (4) And because he had become weak with old 
age, another ape, who was young and vigorous, (became in- 
flamed in his heart with the fire of jealousy, and in his im- 
patience) raised a revolt against him and drove him out of his 
own herd (, so that he was spending his time in exile). (5) On 
this (same) shore there was a fig-tree named Honey-filled. The 
old ape lived by eating its fruits. (6) Now once as he was 
eating them a fig fell from his hand into the water. (7) And 
as it fell (into the water) it made an agreeable splash. (8) When 
the ape heard it he began to pluck off (other) figs again and 
again and to throw them down one by one, because he was 
idle and silly by nature and they delighted his ear. (9) Now 
it happened that a crocodile named Scrawny was passing below 
him, and he caught those figs and ate them (to his heart’s 
content). (10) So he remained (on the spot) in order to get 
the sweet food. (11) And Wrinkle-face formed an affectionate 
attachment for him, so that he forgot even his exile from his 
herd. (12) The erocodile’s heart also was affected with great 
love for him, so that he put off the time of returning to his 
home. (13) Now his wife, among her women-friends, was grieved 
at heart because of the long separation from him [and said]: 


394 Book IV: The Loss of One’s Gettings 


‘Where is he, my beloved? What is he doing away from home 
that interests him so greatly? And he stays a very long time 
today. He wrongs himself by neglecting the ‘group of three’?.” 
(14) Then one of her women-friends said: “ How can you have 
either home or wealth frour such a husband, when you do not 
know what he is about? (15) But I saw him (with my own 
eyes) in a place on the seashore amusing himself in secret with 
some she-ape or other, and showing the greatest affection for 
her. (16) Know this therefore, and do without delay what needs 
to be done.” (17) And hearing this the crocodile’s wife (was 
overcome with grief, and she gave up all ber household duties, 
and wearing soiled garments), anointing her body with oil, 
(threw herself on her bed and) lay tossing her limbs about 
restlessly, while her women-friends stood about her. (18) But 
when the crocodile, after overstaying his time because of his 
love for Wrinkle-face, returned to his house, he found his wife 
in this state, and in great distress of mind he inquired: “‘ What 
is the cause of this illness of hers?” (19) But not one of her 
women-friends would say a word (; they all held their peace). 
He askt again and again with great insistence. (20) Finally 
one of them (who was like a second self to the crocodile’s 
wife, showing signs of the deepest emotion,) said: (21) ‘ (Sir,) 
this illness of hers is incurable. (We must consider that) she 
is (surely) lost (this very day). There is no cure for her.” (22) 
Hearing this the crocodile was overwhelmed with grief, and 
(in his great love for his wife) he said: (23) “If there is any 
remedy for her, even at the cost of my own life, let this life 
of mine be used for her sake.” (24) She replied: “ (Sir.) there 
is one and only one remedy for her malady. If an ape’s heart 
could be provided, then she would live. (Otherwise she is utterly 
lost.) This is a secret known to us women.” (25) At this he 
reflected (to himself): ‘(What is this woe that has befallen 
me!) How can I get an ape’s heart except from Wrinkle-face? 
But that would be (most villainous and) wicked. And yet: 
Should a wife take first place, or a friend that excels in 


nobility? Surely as between wife and friend the wife comes 
first. 2. 


* The objects of human desire; see page 272, note 4. 





Frame Story: Ape and Crocodile BU5 


Thru her the ‘ group of three’? is won completely; thru her 
[are won]-friends, thru her renown. The whole world depends 
on her; so who would not rate her highly?” 3, 

(26) In great perplexity he reflected again: 

‘““My one and only beloved friend, who has done so much 

for me and is full of noble qualities, must be slain for the sake 
of a woman! Woe has befallen me!” 4. 
_ (27) Meditating thus, (while his heart resisted his going,) he 
set out very slowly towards Wrinkle-face. (28) Perceiving him 
(coming slowly), the ape said: ‘‘ My friend, what is the cause 
of your delay® today?” (29) Said he: ‘‘(Friend,) I will tell 
you what grieves me. I cannot enjoy your company so much, 
for this reason: tho you have been showing me nothing but 
kindness for this long time, I have not been able to do you 
even the slightest favor in return. And likewise: 

Men cleave unto friendship because of self-interest. But you, 
O noblest of apes, show unselfish affection. 5. 

(30) And yet, this saying fits you very well: 

To benefit those to whom one owes no benefits, to do kind- 
nesses, to be mindful of favors done, and to raise the fallen— 
this is characteristic of the noble.” 6. 

(31) The other replied: ‘‘ Why, surely this is a benefit (that 
cannot be surpast): while I have been exiled from my land 
and my kinsmen, I have found a refuge with you, because of 
the friendship that has sprung up between us, and am spending 
my time in (peace and) comfort. (Well has this been said:) 

Who created this two-syllabled jewel called ‘ comrade,’ which 
saves from grief, discontent, and danger, and is a vessel of 
love and trust?” 7, 

(32) The crocodile said: 

‘What greater friendship can there be than this, that in- 
cludes meeting [your friend’s] wife, eating peacefully in [his] 
house, and telling secrets? 8. 

(33) Now I have not brought you to my house, presented 
you to my wife, or given you to eat from my dish.” (34) The 


2 See preceding page, note 1. 

5 Or possibly ‘distraction [of mind];” this is the more usual meaning of 
the Sanskrit word (vyaksepa), but the versions nearly all agree on the sense 
of “‘ delay.” 


396 Book IV: The Loss of One’s Gettings 


ape replied: ‘‘ (What of that? Such is the friendship of common 
folk. And again:) 

A base man may show you his wife, as before actors on the 
stage. Cattle are fed, so that means nothing at all. For it is 
the very nature of the noble, and requires no effort in them, 
to do good to those with whom they associate.” 9. 

(35) Said the other:. 

“What wonder is it if a righteous man honors the wise and 
virtuous? It would be strange only if a base-born man did so; 
that would be like coolness in the sun’s orb. 10. And yet: 

One should not overwhelm a friend or kinsman with an ex- 
cess of affection. A cow repulses her own calf with the tip of 
her horn when he tries to drink too much. 11. 

(36) (Therefore,) my friend, (I also have a return favor to 
offer you.) My house is on a lovely island in the midst of the 
sea. Trees liké the heavenly Tree of Wishes grow there, [with 
fruits] that taste like nectar. So do you climb on my back and 
visit my home.” (37) At this speech the ape was greatly pleased, 
and said: ‘‘ Very good, my friend; this pleases me much. Take 
me there quickly!” (88) Then that crocodile took upon his 
back the ape, all unsuspecting and subject to impending doom; 
and as he went along he reflected: ‘ Alas! 

This business of women is exceedingly grievous, and yet it 
is the cream of life. For the sake of a woman I am committing 
this horrible crime, much as I condemn it. 12. (And what of this?) 

Gold is proved by a touchstone; a man is said to be proved 
by his conduct in business; an ox is proved by a burden; but 
there is no known way of proving women. 13. 

(39) (So for a woman’s sake I must murder my friend.) ” 
As the crocodile was speaking thus the ape said to him: 
‘“ What are you saying?” Said he: “ Nothing.” Then, because 
he would not tell him, the ape became uneasy, and reflected: 
(40) ‘‘ What can be the reason of this, that the crocodile makes 
no answer to my question? (Now I will draw out his secret 
purpose by eraft.)’”’ (41) So thinking he once more questioned 
him very urgently. He replied: “ My wife is afflicted with an 
incurable illness (and that is why I am sad).” The ape said: 
‘Cannot anything be done for her recovery by physicians or 
sorcerers’ spells? ” The crocodile replied: ‘‘ We have askt them 





Frame Story: Ape and Crocodile aot 


too, and they said that she cannot live except by an ape’s heart.” 
(42) When the ape heard this he gave himself up for lost, and 
reflected to himself: “ Alas, (1 am undone;) I am suffering the 
consequence of being a slave to sensual enjoyments, in spite 
of my age. And is it not said?— 

Even in forest-life vices control men that are subject to passions; 
control of the five senses, tho one live in his house, is ascetie 
austerity. For the man who has forsaken his passions, who does 
nothing blameworthy, his own house is a penance-grove.” 14. 

(43) Meditating thus he said to the crocodile: ‘ Friend, you 
have not done well. (If this is the case, then) why did you not 
tell me in the first place? I left my heart behind there when 
I came along. I should have come bringing it. And it is said: 

Whosoever desires the three-fold benefits of religion, worldly 
success, and love, should not come empty-handed to see a 
brahman, a king, or a woman.’ 15. 

(44) Said the other: ‘‘ Where is that heart of yours?” The 
ape replied: ‘On that same fig-tree. (45) It is well known that 
apes always keep their hearts on trees. (46) If you have any 
use for it, let us return and get my heart and then come.” 
(47) When the crocodile heard this he was glad, and turned 
about, and made for the shore. (48) (Then) the ape (in great 
delight) sprang up eagerly and climbed upon a branch (of the 
fig-tree and sat there, thinking: “ Ho! My life is saved after 
all!’’). (49) (But) the crocodile (down below) said: “ Friend, 
bring along your heart and come quickly.” (50) He replied 
(with a laugh): “I shall not come again! (I understood the 
whole business; what I said was meant to trick you.) Get you 
gone, fool! Is the heart ever found outside of the body? 

By craft you hoped to kill me; I have used counter-eraft. 
And by deluding you I have saved myself from death.” 16. 

(51) (And when the crocodile realized what he had in mind, 
he said: “ Friend, even without your heart, come along anyway; 
I will cure her disease by using some other a, The 
ape said:) (52) ‘ Villain, I am not an ass! 

When he had come and gone again, and after going had 
come back once more, the fool that had neither ears nor heart 
met his death on the spot.” 17. 

(53) Said the other: (And) how was that?” The ape said: 


398 Book IV: The Loss of One’s Gettings 


STORY 1: ASS WITHOUT HEART AND EARS 


(54) In a (certain) forest-region dwelt a lion. (55) (And) he 
had a certain jackal for his attendant. (56) Now this lion was. 
once attackt by a stomach-trouble and lost his power to do 
anything. (57) (And) when the jackal’s throat had grown lean 
with hunger he said to him: “Sire, how can we live thus 
doing nothing?” (58) Said he: ‘ Friend, this disease of mine 
can be cured only by the remedy of an ass’s heart and ears, 
and in no other way. (59) Therefore bend all your efforts to 
bringing me an ass.” He replied: ‘‘ As my lord commands.” 
(60) So speaking he departed; and when he had found an ass 
belonging to a washerman in the neighborhood of a town, he 
said to him: (61) “ (Friend,) why are you so lean?” (62) He 
replied: ‘“‘(My friend,) I live by carrying every day a great 
load (of clothes), and [yet] this villain [of a washerman] does 
not give me enuf to eat.” (63) Said he: “ Why let yourself be 
tormented thus? I will take you to a place where you will 
think yourself in heaven!” (64) He said: “Tell me, how?” 
(65) Said the other: “In this stretch of woods (full of emerald- 
green grass, thru which a river flows,) there are three beautiful 
she-asses such as you never saw before, blooming with the 
freshness of youth, and I think they have run away because 
they were weary of the same troubles that you suffer. I will 
bring you to them.” (66) (And) hearing this he agreed, saying 
“Do so!” And he brought him (, the fool,) into the presence 
of the lion. (67) And when he saw the ass (within reach of 
his paws), the lion was rejoist and (sprang up and) leapt upon 
him. But because of his weakness the ass (managed to get 
away and turned and) fled (without looking back), his heart 
smitten with terror. (68) Then the jackal said to the lion: 
‘“ (Well!) is that the best sort of a blow you can deliver? If 
you cannot so much as kill an ass (when he is brought before 
you), how can you expect to conquer your rivals?” (69) He 
replied: “ (Undoubtedly!) But just bring him back again, and 
this time I will kill him.” (70) Said he: “ Be ready (for him), 
that he may not escape again in the same way when I bring 
him back by my power of wit, in spite of his having felt your 
prowess!’’ And (with a laugh) he departed. (71) Going up to 





Story 1: Ass without Heart and Kars.—Frame Story: Ape and Crocodile 399 


the ass he said: ‘“ Why did you turn back?” (72) Said he: 
“(A terrible thing happened to me!) Some sort of creature 
(as big as a mountain-peak, I know not what it was,) fell upon 
me, so that I ran away from it (barely saving my life).’”’ (73) 
He replied: “ You did not understand! (And it is said:) 

It generally happens in this world that when men are seeking 
the ‘ group of three ’*, hindrances that really do not exist arise 
out of their own imagination. 18, 

(74) When that she-ass saw you she (was stirred with great 
lust and) started to embrace you passionately. (And you were 
such a coward that you fled.) But she could not bear to be 
without you, and as you fled she put out her arm to stop you; 
that was all there was to it. So come back!’ (75) Hearing this 
the ass said: ‘‘I will come with you.’ (So saying,) (76) he 
was led back (again by the jackal), and the lion caught him 
and killed him. (77) (Then after he had killed him) the lion 
said: ‘ (Friend,) the rule for applying the remedy is this, that 
it is applied after worship of the gods and other rites. (Only 
then does it have its effect.) Wherefore do you (stay here quietly 
and) watch until I have bathed and performed the daily sacred 
rites and come back.” (78) (With these words he departed.) 
And when the lion had gone the jackal, thinking “ It must 
be an excellent physic!”, (and being very greedy, himself) ate 
the heart and ears (of the ass). (79) (And when he had eaten 
them he wiped his mouth and paws clean and waited. And 
having bathed) the lion came back and (made the formal turn 
to the right [about the body] and) failed to find the heart and 
ears. And he said: (80) ‘(What has happened here? Tell me,) 
where are his heart and ears?” (81) The jackal said: “(My 
lord,) how could this fool have had heart® or ears? (Surely) 
if he had had heart or ears, would he have acted thus?— 
‘When he had come and gone again,’ &.” (82) (At this) the 
lion was silent. 

(End of Story 1) 


(83) ‘‘ Therefore I say: I am not an ass! (So) get you gone; 
you cannot trick me (again). 


4 See page 394, note 1, et passim. 
5 The Hindus regard the heart as the seat of the intelligence. 


400 Book IV: The Loss of One’s Gettings 


You first attempted your purpose with crafty words; but I 
perceived it thru the faults of your wit, carefully hidden tho 
they were, and I also took a lesson from your over-excessive 
cleverness and gained time by crafty words. Like has met 
like! 19. And this is well said: 

Assuredly the very slips of judgment that one makes may 
serve to enlighten the judgment. They cure the minds of in- 
telligent men who know the truth, like excellent medicines.” 20. 

(84) Then the crocodile said to Wrinkle-face, his mind being 
imprest with his. skillful wit: 

“The wise proclaim their own folly, but laud the wisdom 
of others; however, in whatever they undertake, their efforts 
never fail.” 21.. 7 

(85) So saying, with disappointed hopes, he went to his own 


abode. 


Here ends the Fourth Book, called the Loss of One’s Gettings. 





BOOK V 


HASTY ACTION, OR, THE BRAHMAN AND THE 
| MONGOOSE 


(1) Now here begins this, the fifth book, called Hasty Action; 
of which this is the opening stanza: 

Whosoever, without knowing the true facts of the case, yields 
to the sway of wrath, soon loses his friend, as the brahman 
the mongoose. 1. 

(2) The king’s sons said: ‘‘(And) how was that?” Visnusgar- 
man said: 

(3) In the Gauda-country there dwelt a (certain) brahman 
(of good family) named Devasarman?. (4) (And) his wife was 
(a brahman-woman) named Yajiadatta?. (5) (One time) she con- 
ceived (as a result of former good deeds). (6) And when 
Devasarman perceived this he was (greatly) rejoist, (and re- 
flected thus: “A great blessing has come upon me, for I shall 
get a child!”’), and he said to his wife: (7) “(My dear,) your 
hopes are gratified. You shall bear a son, and all my desires 
shall be fulfilled in him, and I shall perform all the sacred 
rites for him, the rites of (conception,) birth, name-giving, and 
so on. (And) he shall be the support of my house.” (8) (Thus 
addrest) his wife said: “Who knows whether it will be a boy 
or not? (Therefore) it is not fitting to speak thus of something 
that is unknown. One should not rejoice too soon. And it is said: 

A man who wants to dream about the future will find himself 
lying on the ground all whitened, like Somasarman’s father.” 2. 

(9) Said he: ‘‘(And) how was that?” She replied: 


STORY 1: THE BRAHMAN WHO BUILT AIR-CASTLES 
(10) There was a certain brahman’s son who was plying his 
studies. (11) He received sacrificial offerings (of food) in the 


' “God-delight” or ‘“‘ God-help.” 
2 “ Sacrifice-given.” 


4()2 Book V: Hasty Action 


house of a certain merchant. (12) (And) when he did not eat 
there, he received a measure of grits. This he took home and 
put it in a jar and saved it. And so in the course of a long 
time this jar of his became full of grits. (138) One time the 
brahman was lying on his bed underneath that jar, which he 
had hung on a wall-peg, having taken a nap in the day-time 
(and waked up again), and he was meditating thus: (14) “ Very 
high is the price of (grain, and still higher grits, which are) 
food all prepared. So I must have grits worth as much as 
twenty rupees. (15) And if I sell them I can get as many as 
ten she-goats (worth two rupees apiece). (16) And when they 
are six months old they will bear young, and their offspring 
(will) also (bring forth). (17) And after five years they will be 
very numerous, as many as four hundred. (18) (And it is 
commonly reported that) for four she-goats you can get a cow 
(that is young and rich in milk, and that has all the best 
qualities, and that brings forth live calves). So I shall trade 
those same she-goats for.a hundred cows. (19) And when they 
ealve some of their offspring will be bullocks, and with them 
I shall engage in farming and raise a plenty of grain. (20) From 
the sale of the grain I shall get much gold, and I shall build 
a beautiful mansion (of bricks), enclosed by walls. (21) And 
some worthy brahman, when he sees what a great fortune I 
have, with abundance of men-servants and maid-servants and 
all sorts of goods, will (surely) give me his beautiful daughter 
[to wife]. (22) And (in the course of time) I shall beget on her 
body a boy that shall maintain my line; strengthened by the 
merit I have acquired, he shall be long-lived and free from 
disease. (23) (And when I have performed for him the birth- 
rite and other ceremonies in prescribed fashion,) I shall give 
him the name of Somasgarman?, (24) (And while the boy is 
running about) my wife will be busy with her household duties 
at the time when the cows come home, and will (be very care- 
less and) pay no heed to the lad. (25) (Then, because my heart 
is completely mastered by love for the boy,) I shall (brandish 
a cudgel and) beat my wife with my cudgel.” (26) So (in his 
reverie) he brandisht his eudgel and struck that jar, so that 
it fell down (broken) in a hundred pieces all over himself 


* “ Moon-delight” or “ Moon-help.” 





Story 1: Brahman who built Air-Castles.— Frame Story. 403 


(, and the grits were scattered). Then that brahman’s body 
was all whitened by the powdered grits, and he felt as if 
awakened out of a dream and was greatly abasht (, and the 
people laught at him). 


(End of Story 1) / 


(27) ‘ Therefore I say: (You ought not) ‘to dream about the 
future.’ (When the event has been disclosed you can act upon 
it.) You cannot paint a picture until you have the panel.” (28) 
Now when the time (of birth) arrived, the brahman’s wife 
brought forth a son (bearing the auspicious marks). (29) (Then) 
on the tenth day after the birth (when he had performed the 
rite [of name-giving]) the brahman’s wife left the boy in his 
father’s care and (arose and) went to a (near-by) river to 
purify herself (and to wash her soiled garments). (30) (But) the 
brahman kept watch over the boy (, since he was so poor that 
he could not afford a servant and did his own work). (31) Now 
as it was a day of the moon’s change, the chief queen sent 
from the king’s palace a maid-servant to bring a reader of 
sacred texts, and she called upon the brahman. (32) When the 
brahman received the summons, (as he had suffered from poverty 
all his life long,) he thot: (33) ‘If I do not go at once, some 
one else will get the sacrifice’. There is no one to watch the 
boy. What shall I do?’ (84) (Under these circumstances) he 
left behind a mongoose that he had raised just like a son, keep- 
ing him in his house (in the room where the sacred fire was 
kept and feeding him on kernels of corn and the like), and so 
(the brahman) departed. (35) But the mongoose soon saw a 
cobra coming out of a hole in the ground and going up near 
the child. (36) And as soon as he saw it (his eyes flamed with 
anger, and his lips, teeth, and paws quivered, and) he sprang 
up at once and fell upon the serpent and tore it to pieces. (37) 
And when he saw the brahman coming back, he ran forth with 
great joy to show him [what he had done], with his mouth and 
paws (still) stained with blood. (88) Now when that hasty brah- 
man saw the mongoose with his muzzle smeared with blood, he 
thot: (What!) has he eaten my boy?” and he slew him with 


* Specifically, sraddha-offering (to deceast ancestors), performed on the 
days of the moon’s change, to the accompaniment of Vedic recitations. 


404 Book V: Hasty Action 


his stick. (39) Thereupon, (having killed him,) as soon as the 
brahman entered the house, he saw the child lying asleep and 
unhurt (just as he was), and the cobra cut to pieces (near him). 
(40) And he beat his breast, crying out; ““Ah, woe is me, un- 
happy wretch! What a wicked thing (is this that) I have done!” 
(41) And when his wife came back (and found the brahman 
weeping) and saw the mongoose slain and the serpent cut into 
(a hundred) pieces, she said (to the brahman): ‘“ What does this 
mean (, brahman, and how did it happen)? ’’ (42) (Whereupon) 
the brahman told her the whole story. And the (prudent) wife 
(was deeply distrest and) said (to the brahman): 

‘What is not rightly seen, not rightly understood, not rightly 
heard, and not rightly investigated, should not be done by any 
man—as was done by the barber.” 3. 

(43) Said he: (And) how was that?” She replied: 





STORY 2: THE BARBER WHO KILLED THE MONKS 


(44) There was (in) a certain (city a) merchant’s son (of old), 
who had lost his wealth, his kinsfolk, and his fortune, and was 
ground down by poverty. (Attended by his old nurse he had 
lived since childhood in a part of a broken-down dwelling, and) 
he had been brought up by his old nurse (, a slave-woman). 
(45) ([Once] early in the evening) he meditated, sighing a long 
(and earnest) sigh: “Alas, when will there be an end to this 
[my] poverty?’ As he pondered thus he fell asleep; and it was 
night. (46) And (towards morning) he saw a dream. Three 
monks came and (woke him and) said to him: ‘ Friend, to- 
morrow we shall come to visit you in this same form. (For [we 
are] three heaps of treasure stored away by your forefathers,) 
and when you slay us with a cudgel we shall turn into dinars. 
And you must show no mercy in doing this.” (47) So in the 
morning he awoke, still pondering on this dream, and said to 
the nurse: ‘‘ Today, (mother,) you must be well prepared all 
day for a solemn rite. Make the house ceremonially pure by 
smearing on cow-dung and so forth, and we will feed three 
brahmans to the best of our ability. I for my part am going 
to get a barber.” (48) So it was done, and the barber came 
to trim his beard and nails. When his beard had been trimmed 
in proper fashion, the figures which he had seen in the dream 


Frame Story. —Story 2: Barber who killed the Monks.— Frame Story 405 


came in. (49) And as soon as the merchant’s son saw these 
monks, he dealt with them as he had been commanded. And 
they became piles of money. (50) And as he took in this mass 
of wealth, the merchant’s son gave the barber three hundred 
dinars (as a fee, and) in order to keep the secret. (51) But 
the barber, having seen him [do this], went home ard drew a 
hasty conclusion from what he had seen, and thot: ‘I too will 
kill three monks (with a cudgel) and turn them into three heaps 
of treasure.”’ (52) So he took a cudgel and stood in readiness; 
and presently three monks, impelled by their previous deeds, 
came a-begging. (53) Thereupon the barber smote them with 
the cudgel and killed them. And he got no treasure. (54) Straight- 
way the king’s officers came and arrested the barber and took 
him away and impaled him. 


(End of Story 2) 


(55) Therefore I say: ‘‘ What is not rightly seen, not rightly 
understood ” &e. (56) ‘ (So you also are just such a fool. There- 
fore wise men must not perform any action until it has been 
carefully considered.) ” 


Here ends the Fifth Book, called Hasty Action. 


[END OF THE PANCATANTRA] 


Edgerton, Paiieatantra, II. 27 


ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA 


Page 42, footnote 32. On this subject (translations from the Pahlavi into 
Arabic) see now Sprengling, American Journal of Semitic Languages, 
40 (1924), 81ff., especially 86 ff. 

Page 128, line 19 of first paragraph: for “versons” read ‘- versions”. 

Page 161, last line of paragraph (13): read evainam ghatayisyanti. 

Page 173, line 2 of paragraph (17): read ‘(Pn yaya)”. 

Page 294, line 2 of § 196: for “your” read “our”. 

Page 337, seventh line from bottom: for “abanbon” read “abandon”. 





DATE DUE 


‘ 
< 
0) 
> | 
z 
a 
w 
be 
z 
x 
a 
. eal 
a -. 
° 
t¢ po | 
hg > 
e < 
4 oO 





PK3741 .P2 1924 v.2 
The Panchatantra reconstructed; an 


ceton Theological Seminary—Spe 


LU 


i 


1 1012 00027 7436 





